JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against an Order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department [the respondent no. 1] whereby the claim made by the petitioners for settlement of a parcel of land, described herein below, measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas, in their favour has been rejected. The petitioners have also sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondent authorities to restrain or forebear them from giving effect to the resolution passed by the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai whereby the allotment of land to the petitioners had been rejected. 2. The parcel of land in respect of which the petitioners have claimed settlement is a parcel of land measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas located in Village – Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Namati, District – Nagaon. The parcel of land [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-plot’, for ease of reference] comprises of an area measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lessas in Dag no. 120 and 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lessas in Dag no. 121 located in Revenue Village - Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Namati, District – Nagaon. 3. The petitioners are six in nos. and they are : [i] Ismail Ali, [ii] Younus Ali, [iii] Latfur Rahman, [iv] Atabur Rahman, [v] Hijfour Rahman and [vi] Samsul Haque, who all are sons of one Abdul Aziz and all the petitioners are also residents of Village – Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – Naumati, District – Hojai [earlier part of District – Nagaon], Assam. 4. There were several rounds of litigations earlier. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of three writ petitions, Civil Rule no. 3969/1991, Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 and W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005. 5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are in occupation of the subject-plot since more than 25 years at the time of institution of the present writ petition. A part of the subject-plot is being used as homestead purposes by the petitioners and the remaining part is being used for the purpose of growing vegetables, etc. It has been pleaded that long and continuous possession of the subject-plot since 1995 has ripened into title in respect of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. 6. A part of the subject-plot is being used as homestead purposes by the petitioners and the remaining part is being used for the purpose of growing vegetables, etc. It has been pleaded that long and continuous possession of the subject-plot since 1995 has ripened into title in respect of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. 6. From the materials on record, it has emerged that the petitioners submitted application before the Sub-Deputy Collector [SDC], Hojai on 11.01.1985 for settlement of the subject-plot and the SDC, Hojai submitted a Report on 30.04.1985 making recommendation for settlement of the subject- plot in favour of the petitioners. On the other hand, the Sub-Divisional Officer [SDO], Hojai had served an Eviction Notice dated 13.05.1985 upon the petitioners in connection with Encroachment Case no. 14/1985 for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot. An appeal preferred against the Eviction Notice was dismissed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 25.06.1985. Thereafter on 09.08.1985, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue under Section 147, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 against the Order dated 25.06.1985 of the Deputy Commissioner. By an Order dated 09.10.1985, the Assam Board of Revenue stayed the Notice dated 13.05.1985 issued by the SDO, Hojai under Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in Encroachment Case no. 14/1985. 7. In Order dated 27.06.1995 passed in Civil Rule no. 3969/1991, it was observed that the question of settlement of the subject-plot with the petitioners was being considered by the authorities. By the said Order, the Civil Rule was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application after the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue. It transpires that the petitioners had renewed their prayer for settlement of the subject-plot in their favour before the respondent authorities. 8. The petitioners have not indicated what finally happened to the appeal preferred by them before the Assam Board of Revenue. 9. The subsequent litigation was in the form of Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. The application of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot received consideration of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai. In a Meeting held on 12.01.1996, the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai recommended for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. 9. The subsequent litigation was in the form of Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. The application of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot received consideration of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai. In a Meeting held on 12.01.1996, the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai recommended for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. By a subsequent Resolution dated 12.11.1996, the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai had, however, rejected the proposal for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. In Civil Rule no. 1433/1996, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the previous recommendation for settlement of the subject-plot was arbitrarily cancelled by the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai without notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them and on those grounds, the subsequent resolution as regards rejection of the proposal was bad in law. 10. The Court took note of the fact that the recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai was not controverted by the State respondents by filing an affidavit. The Court was of the view that if the case of the petitioners for settlement had been recommended then such recommendation would require consideration of the petitioners’ case for settlement and the subsequent cancellation of the recommendation being without notice, could not have any bearing. While disposing of the writ petition by a Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001, the Court had observed that the recommendation of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners, taken on 12.01.1996, would have to be treated as valid and a direction was made to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department [the respondent no. 1] to take the case of the petitioners on board and to pass a final order in respect of the claim of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot keeping in view that then Land Policy of the State Government in matters relating to settlement of land. It was further observed that any decision to be taken by the authority should be supported by adequate reasons in writing and if such authority would consider necessary to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing to arrive at a just decision in the matter then it would be open for the authority to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. It was further observed that any decision to be taken by the authority should be supported by adequate reasons in writing and if such authority would consider necessary to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing to arrive at a just decision in the matter then it would be open for the authority to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. It was further observed that till finalization of the claim of the petitioners as directed by the said Judgment and Order and if the petitioners were in possession of the subject-plot then such possession should not be disturbed. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is found that the second prayer made in the present writ petition had already been redressed in the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001. 12. After a disposal of Civil Rule no. 1433/1996, the petitioners approached again in the year 2005 by way of another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005. In the interregnum, correspondences were exchanged between the Sub- Divisional Officer [C], Hojai and the District Commissioner of erstwhile Nagaon District as regards submission of a proposal for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. 13. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005 was preferred by the petitioners seeking inter alia a direction to the State respondents to pass necessary order for settlement of the subject-plot measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas in terms of the Resolution dated 12.01.1996 passed by the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai and the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. 14. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005, a counter affidavit on behalf of the State respondents was filed taking inter alia a stance that the subject-plot was reserved as ‘pond’ and ‘banks of pond’ as per the land records and there was a serious dispute between the petitioners and the people of the village in respect of the subject-plot and such Government land reserved for ‘pond’ and ‘banks of pond’ could not be settled against any individual person. 15. The Court taking note of the observations made in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Rule no. 15. The Court taking note of the observations made in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 and the above stand taken by the State respondents in the counter affidavit, disposed of the writ petition by an Order dated 25.04.2013 directing the State Government in the Revenue Department to pass an appropriate order in terms of the direction already made in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 as expeditiously as possible. The Court had observed that the only requirement for the State respondents was to pass appropriate order in terms of the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. 16. Finally, it was in the above backdrop of events, the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014 came to be passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department. 17. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Medhi, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 18. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the grounds of rejection recorded in the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014 to negate the claim of the petitioners are not tenable as a consideration for the claim of the petitioners for settlement was to be confined to the direction made in the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001. He has contended that the recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai had already been crystallized in favour of the petitioners. Any subsequent inheritance of any land in favour of the petitioners ought not to have been taken into consideration. He has contended that at the time of submission of the application for settlement, no land was in the name of the petitioners. Being landless persons, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for settlement. Such consideration for settlement was to be strictly in terms of the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the then existing Land Policy. He has further contended that new and subsequent facts cannot be brought in to decide the application which was submitted much earlier to the institution of Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. Such consideration for settlement was to be strictly in terms of the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the then existing Land Policy. He has further contended that new and subsequent facts cannot be brought in to decide the application which was submitted much earlier to the institution of Civil Rule no. 1433/1996. To support his submissions, Mr. Mahanta has referred to the definitions of ‘Settlement’ and ‘Wasteland’, Rule 2, Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. He has further pointed out that the respondent no. 1 while deciding the application was influenced by the recommendation dated 12.11.1996 made by the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai whereby the proposal of Settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioner was rejected. 19. Ms. Hazarika and Mr. Talukdar appearing for the State respondents have extensively referred to the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014 and the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 along with the documents annexed thereto. It is submitted that the application of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot was considered strictly in terms of the provisions of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Land Policy, 1989 which was directed to be considered in the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 and reiterated in the Order dated 25.04.2013 passed in W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005. It is further contended that the subject-plot, as per the chitha records of 1968-1969, has been kept reserved for ‘pond’ and ‘banks of pond’ and therefore, such lands reserved for public purposes, are not to be settled in favour of the individuals and in support of such submission, reference has been made to Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules. The learned counsel appearing for the State respondents have also referred to the provisions of Rule 15 and Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules in addition to the rules referred to on behalf of the petitioners. It is further contended that at no point of time it has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that they are landless persons. The learned counsel appearing for the State respondents have also referred to the provisions of Rule 15 and Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules in addition to the rules referred to on behalf of the petitioners. It is further contended that at no point of time it has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that they are landless persons. All the petitioners herein are sons of one Abdul Aziz and when an enquiry was made by the Circle Officer, it has been found out that the family of the petitioners owned 24.08 Bighas in the same village i.e. Pachim Jaruni, and the said fact was duly brought to the notice of the respondent no. 1 at the time of consideration of the application and the said fact is reflected in the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014. It has been contended that during their long occupation, the petitioners were only paying Touzi Bahira, which is a form of penalty for encroachment. The fact that the family of the petitioners had owned periodic patta lands would disentitle the petitioners to make any claim for any settlement of any Government land, more particularly, the subject-plot which is reserved for specific purposes. Even if it is assumed that at the time of making the application the family of the petitioners did not own any land, the subsequent events as regards owning 24.08 Bighas of land would disentitle the petitioners to make any claim for settlement of any Government land as the Land Policies are made for distribution of wastelands, etc. only to landless persons. 20. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 21. As already noted above, the subject-plot of 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas comprises of two parcels of land i.e. an area of 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lessas in Dag no. 120 and another area measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lessas in Dag no. 121. Both the parcels of land are in Village - Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – 22. Rule 1[2][b] and Rule 1[2][f] of the Settlement Rules have defined ‘Waste Land’ and ‘Settlement’ respectively. 120 and another area measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 12 Lessas in Dag no. 121. Both the parcels of land are in Village - Pachim Jaruni, Mouza – 22. Rule 1[2][b] and Rule 1[2][f] of the Settlement Rules have defined ‘Waste Land’ and ‘Settlement’ respectively. 1[2][b] Waste Land means land at the disposal of the Government, which the Government has not disposed of by lease, grant or otherwise, and which is not included in a forest reserve, or in a forest proposed to be reserved under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation [VII] of 1891], or in a protected forest constituted under the rules made under the said Regulation, and has not been allotted as a grazing ground under rules framed under Section 13 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. 1[2][f] Settlement in these rules means the leasing of land at the disposal of the Government and includes the operations of survey, classification and report, preliminary to such leasing. 23. By Rule 2 of the Settlement Rules, power has been provided to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners to dispose of waste land required for ordinary or special cultivation or for building purposes and the Deputy Commissioner is required to dispose of such land by granting, leasing or otherwise in the manner and subject to the conditions set forth in the Rules. Rule 5 has provided that an application for lease of waste land shall be in writing and shall be presented to the Deputy Commissioner, or to such other empowered Officer. 24. Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules has provided as under :- 8. Disposal of application – After perusing the report and the map and making such further investigation as may seem necessary and settling any dispute that may have arisen the Deputy Commissioner or other officer empowered in this behalf shall either reject the application or grant a lease or allow it in part. Priority of application – In granting lease, the Deputy Commissioner shall take the following into consideration – [i] Settlement for agricultural purpose of lands available in compact block of 50 bighas or more will be made ordinarily with registered Co-operative farming societies of actual landless cultivators; [ii] When settlement has to be given to individuals, the area should ordinarily be limited to 8 bighas to 12 bighas per family according to the fertility of the soil. In giving settlement to individuals, preference shall be given in the following order :- [a] settlement holders who have been rendered landless due to flood, erosion or earthquake or due to requisition or acquisition of their land by Government for public purposes; [b] landless cultivators and displaced persons from Pakistan who are landless cultivators; [c] cultivators having less than 8 bighas of land. Note :- [1] A person who holds lands less than 8 bighas in his name or in the name of any member of his family shall be eligible to get settlement of only so much of land as shall, together with his existing holding, nor exceed 8 or 12 bighas, as the case may be. [2] The size of the family should also be taken into consideration in giving preference as also in determining the area to be settled with persons of the same category. 25. Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules has enjoined that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of land not included in any lease granted by the State Government either to himself or to any other person. A prohibition is incorporated in Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules to the effect that the lease should be issued on written application only and no person shall enter into possession of waste land in any area until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise a written permission by Deputy Commissioner has been granted to him, pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession. Rule17 of the Settlement Rules, if an occupant to whom settlement is offered accepts it then he shall be liable for payment of the revenue assessed on the land. 26. A reading of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules goes to show that no person can enter into possession of any Government land in any area until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise, a written permission has been granted to him by the Deputy Commissioner, pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession of Government land. When a person enters into possession otherwise than as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, then such person can only be termed as an encroacher. 27. Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules are also of import and relevance in the cases in hand. When a person enters into possession otherwise than as per the provision of Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules, then such person can only be termed as an encroacher. 27. Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules are also of import and relevance in the cases in hand. By the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation [Amendment] Act, 1997, the sub-rule [2] of Rule 18 has been amended and it was published in the Official Gazette in its issue dated 29.03.1997. For ready reference, the relevant parts of Rule 18[2] of the Settlement Rules are extracted hereinbelow :- Rule 18. Ejectment.- [2] When such person has entered into possession of Government khas land, or Waste land or estate over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, hand-holder or Settlement-holder or any land that has previously been reserved roads or roadside land or for the grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes, or has entered into possession of land from which he has been excluded by general or special orders and when further, there is no bonafide claim of right involved he may be ejected or ordered to vacate the land forthwith, and the Deputy Commissioner may sell, confiscate or destroy any crop raised, or any building or other construction erected without authority on the land. 28. A plead has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that right from 1985, the petitioners are paying revenue in respect of the subject-plot and to support such claim, a number of revenue receipts have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure A–1 to A–3. A bare look at those revenue receipts goes to show that the petitioners were paying Touzi Bahira in respect of the subject-plot from the year 1985. The collection which is made as Touzi Bahira is in the nature of a penalty. The change of nomenclature from Touzi Bahira to Bedakhali Jarimona [Encroachment Penalty] came in the year 1992 by a decision of the State Government in the Revenue Department. 29. The collection which is made as Touzi Bahira is in the nature of a penalty. The change of nomenclature from Touzi Bahira to Bedakhali Jarimona [Encroachment Penalty] came in the year 1992 by a decision of the State Government in the Revenue Department. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Assam and others vs. Rabha Kanoo [Smt] and others, reported in 1996 [8] SCC 692 , had the occasion to examine the provisions of Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 17A and Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulation, 1886 in the context of the right of a person who had entered into possession of Government land otherwise than in accordance with Rule 16, from whom amounts were collected in the form of Touzi Bahira Revenue. It has been held that such collection of Touzi Bahira Revenue from persons other than those covered by Rule 16, Rule 17 and Rule 17A would not confer any right on such person in unauthorized occupation of Government land. It has also been held that such collection has to be regarded as illegal collection and it does not bind the Government, because of the mandate embodied in Rule 16. From the said decision, it has emerged that collection of Touzi Bahira Revenue does not amount to collection of revenue and the possession of a person in unauthorized occupation from whom Touzi Bahira Revenue is collected, does not become lawful because of such collection. It is also discernible from the said decision that merely for the fact that Touzi Bahira Revenue has been collected from such a person, the person who is a trespasser of Government land, there is no bar for the authorities to evict such person from such land to recover possession of land under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. 30. The petitioners are found paying only Bedakhali Jarimona [Encroachment Penalty] which itself indicates that the petitioners are encroachers. 31. Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules, as extracted above, has provided for disposal of application for settlement and has also provided for the manner in which applications are to be prioritized. When settlement is to be given to individuals, the area should ordinarily be limited to 8 Bighas to 12 Bighas per family according to fertility of the soil. 31. Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules, as extracted above, has provided for disposal of application for settlement and has also provided for the manner in which applications are to be prioritized. When settlement is to be given to individuals, the area should ordinarily be limited to 8 Bighas to 12 Bighas per family according to fertility of the soil. In giving settlement to individuals, preference shall be given, first to the Settlement holders who have been rendered landless due to flood, erosion or earthquake or due to requisition or acquisition of the land by the Government for public purposes; secondly, to landless cultivators and displaced persons from Pakistan towards landless cultivators; and thirdly, to cultivators having less than 8 Bighas of land. The Notes appended to Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules are of pertinence. Note – 1 has clarified that a person who holds less than 8 Bighas in his name or in the name of any member of his family shall be eligible to get settlement of only so much of land as shall, together with his existing holding, not exceed 8 or 12 Bighas, as the case may be. Note – 2 has clarified that the size of the family should also be taken into consideration in giving preference as also in determining the area to be settled with persons of the same category. 32. At the times, the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 in Civil Rule no. 1433/1996 and the Order dated 25.04.2013 in W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005 were rendered the Land Policy which was in vogue, was the Land Policy of 1989. The direction was made in the said two Orders to consider the case of the petitioners as per the then existing Land Policy. Therefore, the same had to the Land Policy of 1989. When the impugned Order was passed on 29.09.2014, the Land Policy, 1989 was in currency. 33. As per the Land Policy, 1989, the land at the disposal of the Government for ordinary cultivation may initially be given by way of allotment to indigenous landless cultivators. The maximum limit of land for allotment to an individual is fixed at seven Bighas for agriculture and one Bigha for homestead. As regards giving preference, other than the three categories mentioned in Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules, few more categories were included. The maximum limit of land for allotment to an individual is fixed at seven Bighas for agriculture and one Bigha for homestead. As regards giving preference, other than the three categories mentioned in Rule 8 of the Settlement Rules, few more categories were included. Those were local landless cultivators with preference to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and MOBC communities and landless ex-serviceman. It has been made clear that allotment and settlement of land for ordinary cultivation in rural area may be given on the basis of a family. The area of land to be allotted or settled with a cultivator family having land measuring three Bighas or less should be so much as would, together with land already held as owner or tenant or both, not exceed eight Bighas in total. All allotment / settlement of land for ordinary cultivation was be made to the indigenous landless cultivators. 34. In the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 [supra], this Court directed to consider the application of the petitioners treating the recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai as valid and operative and thereafter, to pass a final order in the matter of the claim of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot keeping in view the then existing Land Policy relating to settlement of land. It was further observed that the decision to be taken must be supported by adequate reasons in writing and if asked for, the petitioners shall be provided an opportunity of hearing. 35. In the Order dated 25.04.2013 in W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005, the Court took note of the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the State respondents wherein it was asserted that the petitioners and their family were not landless persons as they possessed Periodic Patta lands. In the Order dated 25.04.2013, paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit was extracted, which read as under, :- That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it may be stated that the answering deponent did not fail to comply with the direction in the Judgment dated 18.07.2001 passed by the Hon’ble Court in C.R. no. 1443/1996. The above judgment directed the respondents to settle claim of the petitioners for settlement of the land in question keeping in view the present Policy of the State Government. 1443/1996. The above judgment directed the respondents to settle claim of the petitioners for settlement of the land in question keeping in view the present Policy of the State Government. The present Land Policy of the State Government, 1989 spells out that Government land can be settled only against landless persons and no ponds reserved in Government land can be settled against any individual. The answering respondent did not sit over the matter as a thorough enquiry was made regarding the eligibility of the petitioners regarding settlement of the land in question which took some time. Accordingly it was revealed that the petitioners and their family are not landless person as they possesses 40B-03K-17 ¼ Lechas of P.P. land under Doboka Rev. Circle. Moreover, it was also revealed that the land in question is recorded as pond and its banks as per office records. The above facts disqualifies the claim of the petitioners for settlement of land in question as per Government land policy, 1989. 36. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 in the instant case, the details of the lands recorded in the names of the present six petitioners have been mentioned. Contrary to the area of land measuring 40 Bighas 3 Kathas 17 ¼ Lessas of periodic patta land claimed in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.[C] no. 7692/2005, the respondent no. 1 in the counter affidavit filed in the instant case has averred that the area of land measuring 24.08 Bighas located in Village - Pachim Jaruni stood recorded in the names of the petitioners subsequently after the death of their father, Abdul Aziz by way of inheritance. 37. In the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioners, it is mentioned that Abdul Aziz expired on 26.11.2015 and prior to 26.11.2015, the petitioners were landless and they had no periodic patta lands in their names at the time when Land Advisory Committee recommended for settlement of the subject-plot in their favour. 38. From the copies of the Jamabandi annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 1, it is noticed that by way of different orders passed in Mutation cases, all dated 22.04.2016, an area of land measuring 24.08 Bighas, in total, stood devolved upon the petitioners by way of inheritance from Late Abdul Aziz who was the father of all the six petitioners. The Land Policy, 1989 was framed repealing the earlier Land Policy, 1972. 1, it is noticed that by way of different orders passed in Mutation cases, all dated 22.04.2016, an area of land measuring 24.08 Bighas, in total, stood devolved upon the petitioners by way of inheritance from Late Abdul Aziz who was the father of all the six petitioners. The Land Policy, 1989 was framed repealing the earlier Land Policy, 1972. The avowed purposes of the Land Policy was to allot lands which are scarce and to cope with the needs of the people and to meet the requirement of the indigenous rural landless peasantry. In the rural areas, if a family is having land measuring three Bighas or less, then the allotment is to be made limited to eight Bighas in total including the area of land already owned by the family. It is not a pleaded case of the petitioners that at the time of making the applications for settlement of the subject-plot, the family of the petitioners was landless. 39. The Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 [supra] and the Order dated 25.04.2013 [supra] had directed the respondent no. 1 to consider the application of the petitioners for settlement by taking into consideration the recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai and without any further restriction. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 while taking the decision on the application for settlement of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners, was required to take into consideration the recommendation of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai; and the Land Policy, 1989 and the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 [‘the Regulation, 1886’ for short] and the Settlement Rules framed thereunder into consideration. As per the Land Policy, 1989, the Land Advisory Committee is only an advisory body, meaning thereby, its recommendation is not binding on the respondent no. 1. But, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent no. 1 to take into consideration the overall objects and purposes of Land Policy, 1989 and Regulation, 1886 with the Settlement Rules and to consider the application for settlement on its own merits including the recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee. The said authority was also required to consider about the category of land for which the Settlement had been sought for. The said authority was also required to consider about the category of land for which the Settlement had been sought for. As noted above, it needs and iteration that it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the family of the petitioners was landless either on the date of submission of the application for settlement or at the time of taking the impugned decision on 29.09.2014. On the other hand, it has been pleaded that their long and continuous possession of the subject-plot measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas since 1985 had ripened into title of the subject-plot in favour of the petitioners. In other words, the subject-plot’s long occupation has crystalllised a right in favour of the petitioners to seek its settlement. Such a claim would be in the nature of an adverse possession against the Government land in respect of Government plot. Since long period of possession does not result into any right of adverse possession and right over land resting with the State cannot be claimed by any encroacher resulting in crystallization of adverse possession in a writ petition. 40. It is also settled that merely by submission of an application for settlement no vested right is created in favour of any party. The recommendation dated 12.01.1996 of the Land Advisory Committee, Hojai might have given rise to a kind of expectation for the petitioners, but, such expectations, is limited for a consideration of the application in terms of the direction made in the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 and Order dated 25.04.2013 which, in turn, would amount to consideration of the application on its own merits and as per the then Land Policy. The family of the petitioners through their father is owner of periodic patta lands measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas in the same village. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for consideration of their application for settlement of the subject-plot as landless persons would cease as soon as their family through their father, Abdul Aziz became owners of the parcel of periodic patta land measuring 24.08 Bighas. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for consideration of their application for settlement of the subject-plot as landless persons would cease as soon as their family through their father, Abdul Aziz became owners of the parcel of periodic patta land measuring 24.08 Bighas. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that at the time the impugned Order was passed on 29.09.2014 the petitioners were not owning any land in their names, but they have not denied that as on 29.09.2014, their father, Abdul Aziz did not own the parcel of land measuring 24.08 Bighas in the same village either at the time of filing the writ petition or in the affidavit-in-reply filed after filing of the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent no. 1. 41. It has also been sought to canvass that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the Minimum Needs Programme [MNP]. However, except in one Letter dated 24.03.2003 of the Deputy Commissioner, there is no other document to indicate that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the MNP. In the said Letter dated 24.03.2023, the Deputy Commissioner mentioned only to the effect that it appeared that the petitioner no. 1 would get the subject-plot under the MNP Scheme and Rs. 2,500/- for construction of a house. The MNP Scheme was framed for landless agricultural workers and the MNP Scheme was implemented through the Deputy Commissioner. The aim of the Scheme was to provide house-site the rural landless agricultural workers who had no homestead land on their own and whose means of livelihood depended on agricultural activity only. Under the MNP Scheme, homestead land measuring upto one-half to one Bigha was allotted to each allottee and the land was generally selected from Government Khas/Waste Lands and Ceiling Surplus land. Besides land, a grant of Rs. 2,500/- was also provided for construction of a house on the allotted land. The Deputy Commissioner had to prepare the list of beneficiaries and place it for approval of the Government. The petitioners have not stated that their names were included in the final list of beneficiaries prepared by the Deputy Commissioner for the benefits under the MNP Scheme thereafter, which had received the approval of the Government. 42. The Deputy Commissioner had to prepare the list of beneficiaries and place it for approval of the Government. The petitioners have not stated that their names were included in the final list of beneficiaries prepared by the Deputy Commissioner for the benefits under the MNP Scheme thereafter, which had received the approval of the Government. 42. This Court is of the considered view that even if it was a situation that at the time of submission of the application by the petitioners for consideration of their claim for the specific plot of land measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessas i.e. the subject-plot the family of the petitioners did not own any periodic patta land, the subsequent ownership of 24.08 Bighas of periodic patta land in the same village would extinguish any claim of the petitioners for settlement of the subject-plot. Mere pendency of an application for settlement of land does not create any vested right in an applicant. With the submission of an application for settlement, the applicant can, at best, claim for consideration of the application as per law and on merits. Right accrues only when approval is accorded by the competent authority. The reason is that approval is accorded after examining a host of factors and on the basis of the scrutiny of application, including eligibility and status of the applicant and the documents submitted therewith. The application goes through scrutiny at various levels and the eligibility of the applicant is to be examined qua the extant Land Policy. There is always a possibility of an application not meeting the requisite criteria for according approval for settlement, meaning thereby, there is always a possibility of rejection of an application. Until and unless an application complete in all respects is approved, it remains an application only and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an application. A proposal cannot be equated with an approval. In a case of the nature like the present one, whether the applicant has a valid claim for settlement or not is examined at various stages in the decision-making process, which culminates in the final decision, which, is to be based on the then extant Land Policy vis-à-vis the material facts available on record with regard to the status of the applicant as a landless person qua the competing claims of other landless persons. 43. 43. As the matter of settlement of lands in terms of the public policies framed by the State Government including the Land Policy, 1989 is primarily for the purpose of giving succour to and meeting the basic needs of the landless persons the element of public interest is to be kept in mind for settlement of scarce waste lands at the disposal of the Government. Therefore, even if the ownership of 24.08 Bighas of periodic patta lands is accepted to be an event subsequent the date of application, then also at the time of taking the final decision, the public element and the public policy as regards disposal of scarce waste lands at the disposal of the Government for settlement would prevail over the individual claim of the present petitioners with the subsequent change in their status from landless to landowners. If subsequent event is going to have a vital and material bearing qua the claim of an applicant, the authority can take such subsequent event into consideration while taking the final decision and when public interest stands against the private interest, it is always the public interest which is to be given precedence. Viewed from the above perspective, the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014 taking the final decision to reject the application of the petitioners due to the acquisition of land ownership of 24.08 Bighas by the family of petitioners cannot be termed as bad and arbitrary. 44. In view of the discussion made above and the reasons assigned therein, this Court does not find any reason, not to speak of any good and sufficient reason, to interfere with the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014. Consequently, the writ petition being unmerited, is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. 45. As has been observed in the impugned Order dated 29.09.2014, the State respondents are at liberty to take the necessary steps as per the prescribed procedure for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot forthwith for retaining the land for public purposes, if the petitioners are still in possession of the subject-plot.