Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010029652018 2026:GAU-AS:9545 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/959/2018 DHUNSERI TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANR (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TEZPORE TEA COMPANY LTD. HAVING ONE OF ITS TEA ESTATE AT DARRANG, ASSAM AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4 A, WOODBURN ROAD, KOLKATA- 700020. 2: RAMCHANDRAN MAHADEVAN IYER COMPANY SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER NO. 1 S/OLT. S. RAMCHANDRAN PERMANENT RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 5 TANDEM APARTMENT 52-E BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD KOLKATA- 700019 AND WORKING FOR GAIN AT 4A WOODBURN ROAD KOLKATA- 700020 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 57 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDALGURI DISTRICT - UDALGURI 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER UDALGURI DIST. UDALGURI. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. MAZBAT DIST. DARRANG. Page No.# 2/21 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDALGURI DISTRICT - UDALGURI 6:PHILIP MUNDA SON OF LATE BIRTU MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 7:ADAM MUNDA SON OF LATE BIRTU MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 8:THOMAS TIRKEY DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 9:RARMA MUNDA SON OF SUKURA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 10:RAFEL KUJUR SON OF SANICHARA KUJUR DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 11:DHIREN SAORA SON OF BAIJNATH DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA Page No.# 3/21 IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 12:SUNIL SAORA SON OF BAIJNATH DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 13:JONES MUNDA SON OF ABINASH MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 14:ABHIRAM MUNDA SON OF KHEL MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 15:JOHAN BARIA SON OF PATRAS DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 16:DHANSAL ORANG SON OF BEOLU ORANG DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 17:DEBERA MUNDA SON OF RURAM MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA Page No.# 4/21 IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 18:SOMRA MUNDA SON OF RAGLU DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 19:ATOWA MUNDA SON OF PHILIP DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 20:SUKURA MUNDA SON OF BUDHURAM MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 21:SANCHARUA SOREN SON OF SONARAM 22:LAND MUNDA SON OF JOHAN MUNDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 23:BENEDICT ORANG SON OF LALSAI DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 24:PATRUS MUNDA SON OF SUKRA Page No.# 5/21 DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 25:PAULUS BECK SON OF SIMON DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 26:SUKURA MAJHI SON OF SUNKU DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 27:MEGHLAL MAJHI SON OF PENIRAM DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 28:LEZARUS EKKA SON OF HOLARUS DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 29:THOMAS BECK SON OF DURGA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 30:SANAL ORANG SON OF PATRAS Page No.# 6/21 DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 31:RAFEL ORANG DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 32:AUGUSTAS TIRKI SON OF GARLEL DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 33:PAULUS ORANG DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 34:TEMBA KISPOTA SON OF MANGRA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 35:SANIKA MUNDA SON OF PHILIP DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 36:CHAMPAK MAYAK SON OF NILMOHAN DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN Page No.# 7/21 UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 37:HARIMOHAN NAYAK SON OF BHILLON DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 38:DHANIRAM BASUMATARY SON OF NIZARA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 39:KENDRA BASUMATARY SON OF CHANTHALA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 40:DRIVER BASUMATARY SON OF BACHU BASUMATARY DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 41:CHAMLA NARZERY SON OF SRAVEN DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 42:HARSINGH BASUMATARY SON OF SINGH BASUMATARY DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN Page No.# 8/21 UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 43:KHAGEN GAYARI SON OF BHEMA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 44:JADAV BASUMATARY SON OF LAILA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 45:SUNIL BASUMATARY SON OF DAMALA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 46:KHAGEN MOCHAHARI SON OF KACHURAM DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 47:KENDRA DAIMARY DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 48:BABUL DAIMARY SON OF BIKI DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA Page No.# 9/21 IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 49:BILA BASUMATARY SON OF TUCHUNG DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 50:AMAR BASUMATARY SON OF SUREN DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 51:TARINI BASUMATARY SON OF SUREN DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 52:LANTHA BRAHMA SON OF BAIRA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 53:NAGENDRA BORO SON OF KACHU DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 54:KHAULA DAIMARY SON OF BEHDA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA Page No.# 10/21 IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 55:RABIRAM GAYERI SON OF NILA DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 56:BARDOLOI NARZARY SON OF BIJU DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 57:BIMAL NAZAR SON OF BIJU DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM. 58:JITEN BASUMATARY SON OF TACHIN DAG NO. 8 OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BAHIPUKHURI TEA GARDEN UNDER ORANG MOUZA IN MAZBAT REVENUE CIRCLE ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate Ms. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Revenue Mr. B. J. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. K. Medhi, Advocate Page No.# 11/21 Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that a Company, namely, Tezpore Tea Company Limited was the owner of a tea garden in the name and style of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Page No.# 12/21 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). It is apparent from the order dated 05.05.1992 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No.4866/1991 that the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited, who was the Petitioner in the said proceedings, had no grievance against the final order passed under the Act of 1956. However, their grievance was that in the course of the proceedings, possession of 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land was inadvertently shown as excess land. It further transpires that a representation was submitted by the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited on 19.02.1990 before the Commissioner, Revenue Department, Government of Assam. On account of non-consideration of the said representation, the said Tezpore Tea Company Limited approached this Court by filing the writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.4866/1991. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the order dated 05.05.1992 by the learned Division Bench thereby directing the concerned Respondent Authorities to dispose of the said representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner therein within a period of 4 months therefrom. 4. The record further reveals that on 17.11.1992, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai, disposed of the said representation in pursuance to the order dated 05.05.1992 passed in Civil Rule No.4866/1991 wherein it was Page No.# 13/21 found that the Tea Estate in question had handed over the excess area of 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land and not 277 bighas 2 kathas 3 lechas of land as contended by the Tezpore Tea Company Limited. Accordingly, the area of 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land covered by Dag No.8 of No.2 W/L Bahipukhuri Bagicha was directed to be registered in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and the record of rights be corrected. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri was directed to hand over the area covered by Dag No.8 and correct the records in favour of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. In pursuance thereto, the record of rights were corrected and an area of land admeasuring 216 bighas 0 katha 16 lechas of land were corrected and reflected in the record of rights as on 24.05.1993. 5. The record further reveals that in pursuance thereto, steps were taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Udalguri with the Circle Officer, Mazbat Revenue Circle to carry out eviction and hand over possession to the Manager, Bahipukhuri Tea Estate and report to the office. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to observe that once the land has become the land belonging to a Tea Company, eviction proceedings could not have been resorted to by the Revenue Authorities as the same was outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. Page No.# 14/21 6. Be that as it may, in view of the communication issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Udalguri dated 22.08.1993, certain notices were issued under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules, framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The record further reveals that an organization, namely, Bahipukhuri Bagan Jana Kalyan Samiti filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.2915/1993. It is also seen from paragraph Nos.28 and 29 of the writ petition that certain interim orders were passed staying the eviction proceedings. Be that as it may, vide an order dated 12.02.2001, the Civil Rule No.2423/1993 was disposed of thereby directing the Respondents Nos.2, 3 & 4 to dispose of the Ceiling Case, i.e. Land Ceiling Case No.12/71-72 pending before it. Before proceeding further, this Court also finds it pertinent to observe with great respect that the said direction could not have been passed in as much as that Land Ceiling Case No.12/71-72 already stood disposed of even prior to the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No.4866/1991. 7. Be that as it may, in view of the directions passed in the order dated 12.02.2001 passed in Civil Rule No.2423/1993, the impugned order was passed on 31.05.2013 whereby the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri reiterated the order Page No.# 15/21 dated 17.11.1992 and further observed that the proceedings under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 could not have been initiated taking into account that the land in question was a private Patta land of the Petitioner Company. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioners, being aggrieved, have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that possession of vacant land belonging to the Petitioners was taken by the Respondent Authorities on the garb that it was a ceiling surplus land. It was therefore the duty of the said Respondent Authorities to hand over the said land without any encumbrance. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the land was shown as ceiling surplus, various persons who are arrayed as Respondent Nos.6 to 58 have already entered into possession and have raised construction. The Respondent Authorities were duty bound therefore to hand over the clear and unencumbered possession of the land admeasuring 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas to the Petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that initially certain steps were taken pursuant to the order dated 17.11.1992 to hand over the possession of the land in question as would be apparent from the records that notices under Rule Page No.# 16/21 18(3) of the Settlement Rules were issued for evicting those trespassers. The Petitioner Company had awaited the result of the directions so passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 12.02.2001 passed in Civil Rule No.2423/1993, and it was only 12 years thereafter, order was passed on 31.05.2013 whereby the Respondent Authorities had declined to exercise their jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the Petitioners thereupon had to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition as the situation had arisen on account of the fault of the Respondent Authorities. 9. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Authorities, on the other hand, contended that the exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is limited to specified types of land which have been mentioned in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the land admeasuring 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas were the private lands of the Petitioners, such lands are outside the scope of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. Therefore, the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri do not call for any interference. 10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue Page No.# 17/21 Department further submitted that the Petitioners well knew in the year 1992 itself and subsequently in the year 1993 when their records were corrected that there was encroachment and it was the duty of the Petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available under the law. By way of a writ proceedings thereby insisting upon the Authorities to take action under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, the present proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have duly perused the materials on record. 12. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri was justified in not exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules for eviction of the encroachers over the land belonging to the Petitioners. 13. Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules confers power upon the Deputy Commissioner to eject any person from the land over which no person has acquired rights of proprietor, land holder or settlement holder. 14. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules stipulates the lands wherein the Deputy Commissioner could exercise the power of ejectment. The lands have been specified as:- Page No.# 18/21 (i) lands which have been previously reserved for roads; or (ii) lands which have been previously reserved for roadside lands; or (iii) lands which have been previously reserved for grazing of village cattle; or (iv) lands which were previously reserved for other public purposes; or (v) lands upon which a person has entered into possession from which he has been excluded by general or special order; or (vi) government khas lands; or (vii) waste lands; or (viii) estate over which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder. 15. The nature of the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules makes it clear that lands which belong to a proprietor, land holder and settlement holder is outside the ambit of the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. 16. The record reveals that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 05.05.1992 in Civil Rule No.4866/1991, 216 bighas 4 kathas 5 lessas of land covered Page No.# 19/21 by Dag No.8 of No.2 W/L Bahipukhuri Bagicha were corrected and registered in the name of Bahipukhuri Tea Estate. Any encroachment upon the said land by any person would be purely a dispute between the Petitioners and the encroacher. In the instant case, it is an admitted aspect, as would be evident from the arraying of the Respondent Nos.6 to 58, that the lands belonging to the Petitioners have been encroached by private persons. It is the opinion of this Court that the power conferred by the Deputy Commissioner or any officer authorized on his behalf to carry out any eviction/ejectment would be only limited to the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules. This aspect is further clear from a very reading of Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3)(a) of the Settlement Rules wherein it is clearly stipulated that by exercising the power of ejectment, the Deputy Commissioner would not only direct ejectment or order to vacate, but would also empower the Deputy Commissioner to confiscate or destroy any crops raised or any buildings or other constructions erected. It is the further opinion of this Court that if a meaning is ascribed that private lands would come within the scope of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules, it would not only empower the Deputy Commissioner to confiscate or destroy any crops raised or any building or other construction erected standing over the private lands which do not belong to the State, Page No.# 20/21 but also would empower the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate pure civil dispute between private parties. 17. 17. This Court observes that once the land in question have been recorded in the name of the Petitioner Company on the basis of the order dated 17.11.1992 and the records of rights were corrected, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities to interfere/intermeddle with the possession of the lands stood ousted. 18. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri was justified in passing the order dated 31.05.2013 thereby declining to initiate any proceedings under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules. 19. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 31.05.2013 for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 20. Before parting with the record, this Court duly takes note of that vide the order dated 17.11.1992, there was a specific direction upon the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Udalguri to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the Petitioners. Thereupon, steps were taken under Rule 18(3) of the Settlement Rules. An organization approached this Court assailing the Page No.# 21/21 eviction proceedings and there was a direction passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.02.2001 in Civil Rule No.2423/1993 to decide the said Ceiling Case within a period of 4 months. 12 years down the line, the impugned order was passed, and thereupon, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 21. Taking into account that the Petitioners have been bonafidely litigating before this Court, presuming that this Court would have the jurisdiction and this Court having held that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere/intermeddle with the private disputes between the Petitioners and the Private Respondents, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 during the period when the instant writ petition had been pending, i.e. w.e.f. 18.04.2018 till date while computing the period of limitation in preferring any proceedings before the appropriate and competent Civil Court of jurisdiction, if so advised. 22. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.07.15 10:36:59 +05'30'