JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 7 and Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner herein claims that he is the lawful pattadar and possessor of a plot of land admeasuring 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas situated at Kaliram Bosti, Khatkhati under Mouza Borjan, Patta No. 10, Dag No. 16 in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. On the said land, the petitioner was carrying on a business in the name and style of Alok Brick Bhatta since 2011. On account of the construction of a four-lane road, the petitioner shut down the said Bhatta in the year 2018, but has been regularly paying land revenue. The petitioner had also received compensation in respect to the 5 Bighas of land that were acquired and the remaining 16 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas still remained in his possession. 3. A demarcation notice dated 24.06.2025 was issued whereby the petitioner was asked to remain present when the demarcation was to be carried out by the L.R. staff on 26.06.2025 at 10.00 A.M. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. The materials on record show that this Court vide an order dated 01.09.2025 issued notice. 5. It is very pertinent to take note of that in the order dated 01.09.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court duly recorded the objection of Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, to the effect that while the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Dag No. 16, the demarcation notice pertains to Dag Nos. 142 and 168. The record further reveals that the petitioner thereupon filed 2 (two) miscellaneous applications. 6. The first application was filed on 16.10.2025 seeking a stay of the demarcation notice dated 24.06.2025 and the eviction notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. 142 and 168. The record further reveals that the petitioner thereupon filed 2 (two) miscellaneous applications. 6. The first application was filed on 16.10.2025 seeking a stay of the demarcation notice dated 24.06.2025 and the eviction notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. It is pertinent to take note of that the eviction notice dated 10.09.2025 refers to the land covered by Dag No. 168 of Periodic Patta No. 66 which is recorded in the name of Smt. Protima Timungpi. The petitioner was accordingly issued notice as per Rule 18(1) and Rule 18(3)(a) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 7. The second application filed by the petitioner seeking a stay of the eviction notice dated 29.01.2026 issued by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council wherein reference was made to Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 of an area of land admeasuring 2 Bighas 4 Kathas 19 Lechas. 8. This Court has perused the pleadings and finds that the petitioner has not given any justification, as to how, the petitioner is affected by the said impugned notices taking into account that the Dag numbers mentioned in the impugned notices is Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 whereas the petitioner's landholding certificate and the Jamabandi for the surveyed village both dated 11.01.2024 enclosed as Annexures I and II to the writ petition refer to Dag No. 16 of Periodic Patta No. 10. 9. The Court also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, who submitted that instead of pursuing the present proceedings, the petitioner ought to have approached the respondent No. 3 by placing necessary materials to show that the petitioner has any relation with Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 or any claim over the said land. He further referred to Regulation 5 of the Karbi Anglong District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1959, and submitted that the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council has the authority to evict persons who are in unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the tribal people. 10. Mr. He further referred to Regulation 5 of the Karbi Anglong District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1959, and submitted that the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council has the authority to evict persons who are in unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the tribal people. 10. Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC further submitted that if the petitioner approaches the Respondent Authorities within a reasonable time i.e. 15 days, the Respondent Authorities are not adverse to taking into consideration the petitioner's representation along with any evidence placed, thereby justifying his right to remain over the land and passing a speaking order. 11. This Court, having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met by granting the petitioner an opportunity to submit his claim before the respondent No. 3, and by directing the respondent No. 3 to pass a speaking order and thereupon to proceed in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The petitioner herein is given a period of 20 days from today to submit a representation before the respondent No. 3 along with all necessary documents which should show that the petitioner has claim over the land in his possession and as well as how he has any claim over Dag No. 168 of Patta No. 66 which is the subject matter of both the demarcation notice as well as the eviction notice which have been issued against the petitioner. (ii) The respondent No. 3, upon such representation being submitted within the time so permitted herein above, shall pass a speaking order after intimating all interested parties in respect to the claim of the petitioner. (iii) This Court further directs that till such speaking orders are passed, no steps for eviction of the petitioner shall be carried out. It is further observed that in the circumstance, the speaking order is not favorable to the petitioner, a further 15 days' time be given to the petitioner, before initiating any steps for eviction.