JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. None also appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam when the matter was taken up. PREFACE: 2. The Petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 10.07.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein, whereby the Respondent No. 2 held that the conversion of the Annual Patta No.28 of Dag No.443 of 9/6 Koilamari Village map in favor of the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent No.5 was in accordance with law. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE WRIT PETITION: 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition is that the predecessor-in-interest of the original Petitioner No.1 was a Village Headman and Gaonburah of 9/6 Koilamari Village, North Lakhimpur and the Petitioner No.2 was a resident of the said village. There is no dispute that the entire 9/6 Koilamari Village falls within the tribal belt constituted and declared under the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, (for short, ‘the Regulation’). 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that in the year 1961, their fathers occupied 12 Bighas of land which is now covered by Dag No.443 of Periodic Patta No.25 of 9/6 Koilamari Village under Mouza Nakari in Lakhimpur district and constructed houses thereupon. In the year 1962, during the Indo-China War, the Indian Army requisitioned the said land on temporary basis for setting up camps for which the Petitioners were paid a lump sum amount. After the war, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Settlement Officer, North Lakhimpur, on 21.07.1971, followed by another application dated 22.08.1972 to de-requisition and return the land to the Petitioners. Thereafter, the possession of the land was handed over by the Settlement Authorities. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners continued to use and occupy the said land, which the Petitioners claim that they are in possession as on the date of the filing of the writ petition. 5. Thereafter, the possession of the land was handed over by the Settlement Authorities. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners continued to use and occupy the said land, which the Petitioners claim that they are in possession as on the date of the filing of the writ petition. 5. The Petitioners, along with other similarly situated persons, submitted an application to the Settlement Officer, North Lakhimpur on 08.08.1983, seeking settlement in respect to the land in their possession. But the concerned authorities, instead of considering the said application, issued Annual Patta in favour of the father of the husband of the Respondent No.5, who was a non-tribal and later converted to a periodic patta on 25.02.1984. 6. Be that as it may, an Order bearing No.154 was issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the Petitioner No.1, stating inter alia, that the land admeasuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No.13 (part)/407 under 9/6 Koilamari Village, Mouza Nakari was allotted to the Petitioner No.1 for construction of house and for use and enjoyment. A financial assistance of Rs.750/- was also granted. The said document has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said document reveals that the land which was allotted was different from the land belonging to the private Respondents. 7. It is also alleged in the writ petition that in the month of April 2012, the Petitioners came to learn that out of the 12 Bighas of land under their possession, 5 Bighas of land was illegally settled in the name of Sri Nagen Borah, who was the father-in-law of the Respondent No.5. On enquiry, the Petitioners could get hold of a copy of the order dated 20.06.1997, in Myadi Case No.95/97 that the land was converted from Annual Patta to Myadi land, and subsequently the said land was mutated in the name of the husband of the Respondent No.5 vide the order dated 20.02.2009, in Mutation Case No.347/2008. 8. The Petitioners further alleged that the husband of the Respondent No.5, on 21.03.2012, with the help of the local Police, tried to encroach upon the portion of the land of the Petitioners admeasuring about 5 Bighas by destroying the crops raised thereon by the Petitioners. 8. The Petitioners further alleged that the husband of the Respondent No.5, on 21.03.2012, with the help of the local Police, tried to encroach upon the portion of the land of the Petitioners admeasuring about 5 Bighas by destroying the crops raised thereon by the Petitioners. But due to the intervention of the Petitioners and their neighbours, the Petitioners could not be dispossessed from the land admeasuring 12 Bighas. It was also mentioned that the husband of the Respondent No. 5 was a politically influential person of the locality. 9. The records further reveal that there were various applications filed by the Petitioners for setting aside the conversion of the Annual Patta land to a Periodic Patta land in favour of the husband of the Respondent No.5. However, nothing fructified. Resultantly, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3630/2012. In the said writ petition, the challenge made was on the aspect pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction by the concerned Respondent Authorities in complete disregard to the provisions of Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation. The said writ petition being WP(C) No.3630/2012 was disposed of vide a judgment and order dated 28.11.2013. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the observations of the learned Coordinate Bench in the said Judgment and Order, more particularly, at Paragraph No.5, which is reproduced herein under: “ 5 . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the aforesaid materials it does not appear that the jurisdictional authority had considered relevant aspects of the matter while issuing the patta to the private respondent. Section 163(2)(c) empowers the settling authority to settle land with anyone other than in class of people for which the area is declared provided that there is existence of large cultivable land available in the block belonging to other class of people residing in the belt or block from period before the area was brought under Tribal belt. Section 163(2)(c) empowers the settling authority to settle land with anyone other than in class of people for which the area is declared provided that there is existence of large cultivable land available in the block belonging to other class of people residing in the belt or block from period before the area was brought under Tribal belt. The preconditions for settlement to other class of people would first to consider giving only the land under consideration brought under Tribal belt within the meaning of chapter-X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act 1886 and secondly, then to ascertain as to whether the person other then the class of people is sought to be settled with the land has been staying there from before the constitution of belt or block. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit referred to above does not show that aforesaid considerations were in the mind of the Additional Deputy Commissioner when annual patta was converted into periodic patta or when annual patta was granted. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of the petition by setting aside the impugned order with direction to the Deputy Commissioner to himself hold an enquiry in this matter in the light of Section 163(2)(c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and thereupon to decide as to whether the respondent No.5 is to be settled with the land by conversion of the annual patta land into periodic one. The whole exercise shall be done within a period of three months after receipt of certified copy of this order.” 10. From a perusal of the above quoted portion of the order dated 28.11.2013, it transpires that the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry in the matter in the light of Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation and thereupon to decide whether the husband of the Respondent No.5 was entitled for settlement by conversion of the Annual Patta into Periodic Patta. 11. Pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 28.11.2013, passed by the learned Coordinate Bench, the Respondent No.2 passed the order dated 10.07.2014 holding inter alia, that the conversion of the Annual Patta into Periodic Patta in favour of the husband of the Respondent No.5 was in accordance with law, and it is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT: 12. This Court issued notice vide an order dated 08.06.2015 and passed a direction to maintain status-quo in respect to the land till the returnable date. By an order dated 15.07.2015, the interim order so passed on 08.06.2015 was directed to be continued. STAND OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES: 13. The Respondent No.3, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it was mentioned that as per the official records, there is 5 Bighas of land covered by Dag No.443 of Periodic Patta No.25 of 9/6 Koilamari Village, Mouza Nakari in Lakhimpur and there is no house and cultivation in the said Dag. It was further mentioned that the land which was allotted to the Petitioner No.1 was a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No.13/407 of 9/6 Koilamari Village under the MNP Scheme of the Central Government. Further to that, it was mentioned that the land covered by Dag No.443 and included in AP No.28 was recorded in the name of Sri Nagendra Nath Borah, son of Sri Sisuram Borah. 14. On 20.06.1997, the said land was converted to Periodic Patta as per the possession of the pattadar. It was also mentioned that the land was mutated in the name of the husband of the Respondent No.5 by virtue of inheritance, and the land demarcation of Dag No. 443 was done on 21.03.2012, serving notice to the Petitioners as an adjacent landholder. It was also mentioned that in the light of Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation, enquiry was conducted by taking hearing from both the parties in presence of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue, Lakhimpur, and the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur on 10.07.2014, and thereupon the order was passed by the Respondent No.2. REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS: 15. The Petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.3, wherein the Petitioners have categorically stated that the Petitioners are residents of the said area and the names of the Petitioners have been enrolled in the Voters’ List of 9/6 Koilamari Village. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 16. Mr. The Petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.3, wherein the Petitioners have categorically stated that the Petitioners are residents of the said area and the names of the Petitioners have been enrolled in the Voters’ List of 9/6 Koilamari Village. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 16. Mr. P. K. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No.2, while passing the order dated 10.07.2014, completely failed to take note of the object behind Chapter-X of the Regulation, which was for protection of the Class as notified by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the directions so passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 was to consider as to whether the conversion of the Annual Patta into the Periodic Patta in favour of the husband of the Respondent No.5 was in consonance with Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation, taking into account that it is only when the extent of the cultivable land available for settlement in the belt or the block is large enough, then only there is a possibility of settlement in favour of persons belonging to the other classes of people residing in that belt or block, that too, when there is a bona fide need. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that these aspects of the matter were not at all considered by the Respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 10.07.2014. 17. Per contra, Mr. B. Goswami, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the land which was settled in favour of the Petitioner No.1 is completely different from the land wherein the father-in-law of the Respondent No.5 was granted the Annual Patta. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that this is not a case of disposal of the land available with the Government, and as such, the question of applying Section 163 of the Regulation would not arise. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that this is not a case of disposal of the land available with the Government, and as such, the question of applying Section 163 of the Regulation would not arise. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this is a case wherein an Annual Patta was already issued in favour of the father-in-law of the Respondent No.5 and upon his death, it stood devolved upon his son, i.e. the husband of the Respondent No.5 and as has been the policy of the State for converting the Annual Patta into Periodic Patta upon application being filed and on payment of certain premium, the land was converted from Annual Patta to Periodic Patta. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the finding of facts which have been arrived at by the Respondent No.2 in the impugned order do not call for any interference as it is based upon records and, as such, the husband of the Respondent No.5, being an indigenous permanent resident of the Tribal Belt, taking into account that his father was holding the Annual Patta there was no bar in terms of Chapter-X for converting the land from Annual Patta to Periodic Patta. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 19. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would show that there is no challenge to the Annual Patta which was issued to the father-in-law of the Respondent No.5. The grievance of the Petitioners herein in the earlier round of litigation as well as in the present round of litigation is the conversion of the Annual Patta land of the husband of the Respondent No.5 to Periodic Patta. 20. Chapter-X of the Regulation contains provisions for protection of backward classes. Regulation 162(2) of the Regulation stipulates that no person shall acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement, or settlement any land in any area or areas constituted under the belts or blocks in contravention of Sub-Section (1) of Regulation 162 of the Regulation. The bar which is contained in Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation would, therefore, apply in the case of a transfer, exchange, lease, agreement, or settlement. But the said bar would not apply in the case of succession inasmuch as, devolution of a property through inheritance or testamentary disposition is a completely different concept from that of transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement. 21. But the said bar would not apply in the case of succession inasmuch as, devolution of a property through inheritance or testamentary disposition is a completely different concept from that of transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement. 21. In the instant case, it is seen that the father-in-law of the Respondent No.5 was issued the Annual Patta and thereupon it devolved upon his son upon his death. 22. Chapter-X of the Regulation does not prohibit conversion of an Annual Patta to a Periodic Patta. In fact, a perusal of Rule 13 and 13A of the Settlement Rules show that conversion of Annual Patta to Periodic Patta shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with such instructions that may be issued by the State Government. Further to that, such conversion may involve payment of premium at such rate as may be fixed by the Government. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram Nunia Vs. Hem Chandra Das (D) through legal representatives (Smt.) Prabha Bala Das and Others reported in 2009 SCC Online Gau 114 wherein the learned Coordinate Bench held that the conversion of the Annual Patta to Periodic Patta is permissible as per the policy of the Government. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “ 24 . An annual patta can be converted into a periodic one by the revenue authority. When there is a conversion of annual patta land into periodic patta land there is a change of status in respect of ‘estate’ covered under such patta. Such conversion or change of status can be made only after fulfilment of certain conditions, as per policy laid down by the Government. The Government has also the right to confer such periodic patta to a person other than the person who is holding annual patta if such annual patta holder does not fulfil the criteria, to be conferred with the status of a landholder.” 23. In the instant case, nothing is placed before this Court to show that the conversion of the Annual Patta to Periodic Patta is contrary to or in violation of the directions/instructions/policy of the Government. 24. In the instant case, nothing is placed before this Court to show that the conversion of the Annual Patta to Periodic Patta is contrary to or in violation of the directions/instructions/policy of the Government. 24. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of that Section 163 of the Regulation would apply in respect to lands which are at the disposal of the State, and not in respect to lands wherein annual lease or periodic lease have been granted. 25. It is a settled principle of law as held by this Court in the case of Molan Saikia Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1951 Assam 91 that an Annual Patta upon being issued to a person, unless no renewal notice in accordance with Clause 3 of the Forum of Annual lease is given by either party, the Annual Patta must be issued for the ensuing year. The fact that no fresh grant of Annual Patta has been made to the patta holder is immaterial. This proposition of law is pertinent for the present dispute inasmuch as, unless the Annual Patta is not cancelled, the provisions of Regulation 163(2)(c) of the Regulation cannot be applied. 26. This Court has also duly taken note of the order dated 10.07.2014, which is impugned in the instant proceedings and nothing could be placed before this Court which would show that the order suffers from any patent illegality or perversity, or is contrary to the law laid down in Chapter-X of the Regulation. 27. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, does not find any ground for interference with the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The instant writ petition lacks merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. (ii). Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.