JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. Seven petitioners have joined together in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “Under the circumstances stated above it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why:- A) A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued in setting aside and quashing the impugned letter dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj: district, Karimganj, regarding allotment of the said plots of land in possession of the petitioners, in favour of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, for establishment of the Govt's college over the said plots of land. and/or; B) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities for settlement of the land in possession of the petitioners as tenants under the Makunda Baptist Mid-Mission in Karimganj district in favour of the petitioners under section 15 of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959, and not to take forcible possession of the land in possession of the petitioners without recourse to the due process of law. and/or; C) Such further and other orders shall not be passed as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; and., D) To make the Rule absolute on perusal of records and after hearing the parties to the case. Pending disposal of the Rule issued the respondent authorities may kindly be directed not to evict the petitioners from the land in their possession in pursuant to the impugned letter dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj district, Karimganj, without recourse to the due process of law.” 2. Pending disposal of the Rule issued the respondent authorities may kindly be directed not to evict the petitioners from the land in their possession in pursuant to the impugned letter dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj district, Karimganj, without recourse to the due process of law.” 2. As per the facts projected, land measuring about 31 bigha, 10 katha, 2 chatak covered by Dag No. 335, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349, 351, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 359, 361, 570, 571, 572, and 576, K.P. Patta No. 1 situated at Village and Mouza-Makundarbond originally belonged to the Makund Baptist Mid-Mission in the district of Karimganj and the said land was acquired under the provision of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 (hereinafter Act). The petitioners claim that their predecessors were in possession of the land as raiyats/tenants under the Makunda Baptist Mid- Mission and were issued khatians in the year 1977 onwards by the Settlement Officer, Karimganj. It is thus claimed that the petitioners were entitled to the settlement of the land in accordance with Section 15 of the Act. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the land since then. However, vide the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, necessary approval of the Government was sought for allotment of the land for establishment of a Government Model College. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have heard Shri P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam; Shri A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam and Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department. 4. Shri Roy, learned Senior Counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments and materials enclosed in the writ petition has submitted that certain lands are under their possession as their predecessors were Khatian holders under the erstwhile Baptist Mid-Mission. In this connection, he has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition. Additionally, he has also referred to an additional-affidavit filed on 04.12.2023 pursuant to the direction of this Court whereby all the details of the land under the possession of the petitioners have been given. In this connection, he has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition. Additionally, he has also referred to an additional-affidavit filed on 04.12.2023 pursuant to the direction of this Court whereby all the details of the land under the possession of the petitioners have been given. He has submitted that there is no dispute on the aforesaid statement of facts that the petitioners are indeed in possession of the lands under the aforesaid Dagsand are entitled to get the benefit under Section 15 of the Act in question. He has also submitted that under Section 2(c), it has been clarified that encumbrance would not include the right of a raiyat or agricultural or non-agricultural tenant. For ready reference, the provisions of Sections 15 and 2(c) of the Act are extracted hereinbelow: “15. Settlement of acquired land with persons in occupation.-Subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 4 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (Assam Act I of 1957), where the land acquired under this Act is in occupation of a Raiyat on the date of notification under Section 3, it shall be settled with him, with the following status. [(a) if he has acquired the status of an occupancy tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (Assam Act XXIII of 1971), then the land in his holding shall be settled with him with the status of a lands- holder as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation I of 1886), and he shall upon such settlement be absolved from the obligation if any, of rendering services or making payment of 'bhog' to the institution concerned in respect of his holding and if he has not acquired the status of an occupancy tenants, then the land shall be Settled with him the status of a settlement holder (other than the landholder) as defined in the Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886: Provided however, that notwithstanding anything contained in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 the right of transfer of such holding shall extend only to persons belonging to the same religion as the institution in which the ownership of the land was vested before the date of notification under Section 3 of the Act.]” 5. He has also clarified that principles of law has been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bani Kanta Sarma & Ors. Vs. Assam Board of Revenue & Ors. , reported in 2004 (supp) GLT 694 wherein the following has been observed: “(10) From a close perusal of the above provisions of the Act and as well as the scheme, it appears that no Doloi has the power to settle any land of the Devalaya without sanction of the Managing Committee. Under Section 15, government isempowered to settle the acquired land under the Act with those specified persons who were in occupation of the land with the status of the raiyat under the Act of 1935 or occupancy tenant under the Act of 1971 etc. when Section 5 provides power to the devalaya to retain possession of the land after acquisition.” 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the names of the petitioners have been entered into the Jamabandi and further that certain lands have already been allotted to similarly situated persons. He accordingly submits that in that view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 26.10.2018 would not be sustainable in law. He has also informed that when the writ petition was moved on 04.02.2019, an interim order was passed and the petitioners have not been disturbed from their peaceful possession. Hehas also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional-affidavit filed on 13.12.2024 in which a communication dated 02.04.1984 has been enclosed issued by the Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in which the provisions of the Act has been explained and it has been clearly mentioned that the rights which accrues on a tenant is to be given precedence. 7. Shri Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate has, however, submitted that the land in question is a huge plot and encompasses areas which are outside the area within the possession of the petitioners. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 06.12.2023 filed by the respondent no. 4, the learned State Counsel has submitted that there appears that there is an inadvertent error in the narration of facts in paragraph 13. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 06.12.2023 filed by the respondent no. 4, the learned State Counsel has submitted that there appears that there is an inadvertent error in the narration of facts in paragraph 13. He has in fact placed before this Court the original para-wise comments dated 20.11.2023 issued by the District Commissioner, Karimganj and has submitted that in paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, the word ‘not’ has been left out. For the sake of clarification, the averments made in paragraph 14 of the affidavit dated 06.12.2023 and paragraph 15 of the aforesaid para-wise comments are extracted hereinbelow separately: Affidavit-in-opposition “14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 15 and 17 of the petition, I say that the land allotted in favour of the Govt. Model Degree College does falling under the possession of the tenants as per the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Patharkandi, there is no breach of law as averred or otherwise.” Para-wise comments “Para-15- Though the land allotted in favour of the Govt. Model Degree College does not fall under the possession of the tenants as per the report of the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Patharkandi, so the question of breach of law doesn't arise.” He has also submitted that there are many other Dags apart from the Dags on which the petitioners claim possession. 8. Shri Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that from the materials on record, it appears that the proposed College would not touch upon the areas which are in the possession of the petitioner. He has also submitted that it can be clarified by this Court that by adhering to the principles of law laid down in Section 15, the College may be allowed to be constructed as the same is in the interest of public. 9. Ms. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, while endorsing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents has also placed before this Court a communication dated 16.03.2026 as per which, the construction work of the College is almost over and there is physical progress of 99%. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed on records have been carefully examined. 11. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed on records have been carefully examined. 11. The petitioners have clearly mentioned the Dags of the land under their possession, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition as well the additional-affidavit filed on 04.12.2023. There is, however, no categorical denial of the said statement. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned communication dated 26.10.2018 would show that the College which was proposed to be constructed is over the following Dags: “Dag No. 335 Kha, 339, 340, 341 Kha, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349 Kha, 351Kha, 352, 353Kha, 354, 355, 359Kha, 361, 570, 571Kha, 572Kha and 576.” 12. Though it appears that there has been bifurcation of certain Dags by inserting expression ‘Kha’, there are certain Dags, namely, 339, 348, 355 which appears to be overlapping. At this stage, there is a clarification by the learned counsel for the respondents that since one Dag comprises of a certain area, a part of the Dag can be for the College which was proposed to be constructed. 13. The Act has given certain rights of settlement with persons who are in occupation of such land. The relevant provisions which have already been extracted above, make it clear that if the status of occupancy tenant was acquired, the land in his holding would be settled with such person. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bani Kanta Sarma (supra) has also clearly laid down that the preference has to be given for settlement to persons in occupation and in this regard, the definition of encumbrance, as laid down in Section 2(c) would make it clear that encumbrance would not include the right of a raiyat or agricultural or non-agricultural tenant. 14. This Court has also noticed that in this proceeding, an interim order was passed on 04.02.2019 staying the impugned order dated 26.10.2019. However, from the recent communication dated 16.03.2026, it appears that 99% of the construction work is already over. 14. This Court has also noticed that in this proceeding, an interim order was passed on 04.02.2019 staying the impugned order dated 26.10.2019. However, from the recent communication dated 16.03.2026, it appears that 99% of the construction work is already over. Though a strict view may be taken that such construction would be in violation of the interim order of this Court, this Court is of the view that the present situation would require a harmonious construction inasmuch as, the primary objective of the petitioners was for protection of their rights as well as possession and this position has been made clear by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, who has fairly submitted that the peaceful possession of the petitioners land has not been disturbed. 15. This Court is of the opinion that while there appears to be some overlapping of the Dag numbers, as mentioned above, most of the Dag numbers mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 are not the Dags of the land which are under the possession of the petitioners. This view gets fortified by the aspect that while 99% of the construction work is over, the land of the petitioners has not been affected. 16. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is closed by directing that while there would not be any restraint in the construction of the work which has been completed to 99%, the rights of the petitioners which have been granted under Section 15 and other provisions of the Act should not be affected. 17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. 18. No order as to costs.