JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das and Mr. M. Das, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department appearing on behalf of all the respondents in WP(C) No. 6015/2015 and for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in WP(C) No. 1470/2020. None appears on behalf of the PWD Department in WP(C) No. 1470/2020, when the matter is called for. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it transpires that the outcome of WP(C) No. 1470/2020 would be dependent upon the adjudication in WP(C) No. 6015/2015. Under such circumstances, this Court takes up the first writ petition for adjudication and depending upon the decision in the first writ petition, this Court would take upon the second writ petition. WP(C) No. 6015/2015 3. The present writ petition application was filed challenging the Order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar in Misc Case No. 05/2014, whereby, the land measuring 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 8, 9, 11 & 12 of Patta Nos. 1 and 54 of Abhoypur Mouza under Sonari Revenue Circle was made Sarkari. CONSPECTUS OF FACTS : 4. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are – (A) The fore fathers of the Managing Director/Directors of the Petitioner No. 1 company purchased a tea garden in the name and style of Sonarie Tea Estate. The Sonarie Tea Estate is situated over a plot of land covered by 34 Dags and within KP Patta No. 1 of Sonari Grant, Abhoypur Mouza, under Sonari Revenue Circle in the district of Sivasagar. (B) It is an admitted fact that within the said Sonarie Tea Estate, there is a water body covering 35 Bighas 4 Kathas 10 Lechas, which is situated over Dag Nos. 11, 8, 9 & 12 of K.P. Patta No. 1. (C) A Proceeding was initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘The Regulation’) by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar. 11, 8, 9 & 12 of K.P. Patta No. 1. (C) A Proceeding was initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, ‘The Regulation’) by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar. (D) An organisation in the name and style of Charaidew Mohkuma Tai Ahom Sangskritik Santha had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3339/2007, stating inter-alia that the water  body, which is otherwise called the ‘Sonai Pukhuri’ was dug in the 16 century during the reign of Ahom King Gadapani. The said water body have been in use for the last 5 centuries by the Tai Ahom Community for the rituals in the Medam-Me-Phi and Jasinfa festivities. (E) On account of certain alleged interference caused to the Petitioners and the State Authorities, the said Organisation approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3339/2007. In the affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar in the said writ proceeding; it was mentioned that the pond was used for festive rituals and recreational purposes and water from ‘Sonari Pukhuri’ was also used for irrigation purposes by the local cultivators. It was also mentioned that the proceedings were initiated under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules. The learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2014, disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the proceedings under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules be brought to a logical conclusion within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the said order. (F) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were unaware of these proceedings under Section 116, till the order was passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.10.2014 in WP(C) No. 3339/2007. (G) It is further seen that on the basis of the said proceedings which was registered as Misc Case No. 05/2014, the impugned order was passed on 27.03.2015, whereby, it was opined that the petitioner No. 1 had no possession over the water body for long years and the disputed land had been used by the public. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Sonari Revenue Circle was directed to strike out the name of the petitioner No. 1 from the ‘Records of Rights’, i.e., from the land documents and to convert the land to ‘General Sarkari Land’ and kept reserve for public purposes. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Sonari Revenue Circle was directed to strike out the name of the petitioner No. 1 from the ‘Records of Rights’, i.e., from the land documents and to convert the land to ‘General Sarkari Land’ and kept reserve for public purposes. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.03.2015, the WP(C) No. 6015/2015 was filed before this Court on 28.09.2015. 5. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 05.10.2015, while issuing notice, directed status-quo be maintained. The said interim order, thereupon, had been extended from time to time and still continues. 6. The record further reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent authorities, thereby, justifying the order dated 27.03.2015. In addition to that, in an additional affidavit which was filed by the District Commissioner, Charaideo on 01.08.2017, it was mentioned that recording of the said water body into the patta of the respondent No. 1’s land was an error on the part of the concerned Lat Mandal. 7. In the backdrop of the above, this Court now finds it very pertinent to take note of the second writ petition, which is WP(C) No. 1470/2020. WP(C) No. 1470/2020 8. The reason for filing the second writ petition was that certain actions were taken by the PWD department to construct an approach road to the water body which was the subject matter of adjudication in WP(C) No. 1615/2015. 9. The records reveal that vide an order dated 03.03.2020, the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, had discussed and directed that the status-quo order passed in WP(C) No. 6015/2015 stood extended to the water body. 10. The question, therefore, which arises in the instant proceeding is as to whether, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar was justified in passing the order dated 27.03.2015; more so, in the exercise of the powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules. 11. For that purpose, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules, which is reproduced herein under – “ Power of Deputy Commissioner to order the name of a proprietor, of etc., be struck out of register. 11. For that purpose, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules, which is reproduced herein under – “ Power of Deputy Commissioner to order the name of a proprietor, of etc., be struck out of register. -Whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person whose name is recorded in the General Registers as proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck out from the register: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not strike out the name of any recorded proprietor or landholder, or manager on behalf of a proprietor or land-holder, without giving him due notice and hearing any objections he may prefer against his name being struck out.” 12. A perusal of the above quoted Rule would show that whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person, whose name is recorded in the General Registers as a proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck out from the register. The expression “no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate” is of vital importance, in as much as it is only when a person does not have possession over any interest in the estate, the power can be exercised. The said expression, under no circumstances can be equated to a situation when the person is not in possession of the land in question. 13. It is the further opinion of this Court that if an interpretation is given that a person who loses possession to another and the person’s name is required to be struck off and made Sarkari ‘General Land’, it would result in a chaotic situation and further, the rights which have been constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed, would become otiose. 14. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Bagaria Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in (2008) 4 GLR 134 . 14. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Bagaria Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in (2008) 4 GLR 134 . Paragraph 5 of the said judgment being relevant to this issue, is reproduced herein below “(5) In the backdrop of the law, as indicated above, when one turns to the facts of the present case, it becomes more than abundantly clear that in the case in hand, when the prayer made by the said encroachers to treat them as tenants, within the meaning of the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, had been rejected and the order stood affirmed in the appeal by the Assam Board of Revenue and when the orders, so passed, have attained finality, it cannot be said that the petitioner, as proprietor of the said tea estate, has ceased to have interest over the said land nor can it be said to be a case, where the petitioner, as proprietor or settlement-holder, has ceased to have any interest over the said land, which forms the subject-matter of controversy in this writ petition. This apart, the civil suits are, admittedly, pending and in the civil suits, the petitioner, as plaintiff, has sought for, inter alia, declaration of his rights, title, interest and possession over the suit land, khaas possession thereof by ejecting the defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from trespassing into the suit land in future. 15. In the backdrop of the above principles, the question therefore arises as to whether; the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar could have at all exercised the powers under Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules in the facts of the present case. 16. The petitioners herein claimed and have been claiming that the water body is within their land and the admitted stand of the Respondents that the water body is within the petitioners’ land, is also not in dispute; taking into account the very impugned order dated 27.03.2015 as well as the initiation of proceeding under Rule 116 against the petitioners. 17. This Court had perused the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 and the reason so assigned in the said order is that the petitioner is no longer in possession of the water body and the public have been using it. 17. This Court had perused the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 and the reason so assigned in the said order is that the petitioner is no longer in possession of the water body and the public have been using it. Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules does not merely state about the possession, but it refers to possession of interest in the estate. There is also no quarrel with the fact that the petitioners have been duly paying the revenue in respect to the ‘Patta’ in question. Under such circumstances, it is therefore, the opinion of this Court that the Rule 116 of the Settlement Rules could not have been invoked in respect to the water body in question, taking into account that the petitioners continue to have possession of interest in the estate, which includes the water body. 18. The above fundamental mistake committed by the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue) is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. 19. Let this Court now deal with the action so taken for issuance of a NIT for Infrastructure upgradation to “Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road (Historical Pukhuri)”, which is the subject matter of the second writ petition. The Respondent PWD authorities floated a tender for construction of an approach road over the land, wherein, there is a periodic lease is favour of the petitioners by granting of patta. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the PWD authorities could not have issued the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.01.2020, for Infrastructure upgradation to “Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road (Historical Pukhuri)”, till the land vests with the Petitioner No. 1. 21. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stands disposed of with the following observations and directions- (i) The impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sivasagar in Misc Case No. 05/2014 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.01.2020 in so far as the tender related to the Infrastructure upgradation to “Sonari Pukhuri Approach Road (Historical Pukhuri)” is interfered with. It is clarified that this Court has not interfered with the other works which have been mentioned in the detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.10.2010. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.