Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 are represented by the learned Govt. advocate Mr. P.S. Deka. The contesting litigants are arrayed as the respondent Nos.6 to 9 and they are represented by Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel.

2. The matter relates to 8 bighas 4 kathas land at village Kajipara Part-I covered by Dag No.170/171(old), 972(new) under Chapar Revenue Circle in Dhubri district. The predecessor of the respondents, Sania Sheikh was the khatian holder of the said land. But as he defaulted in paying the revenue, the Khatian No.100 was cancelled and the land was declared to be the Govt. khas land by the Dhubri Deputy Commissioner on 24.07.1972 and the order passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer on 31.07.1972. The concerned land by the bank of the Champabati river was submerged in 1972 and this may have been the reason for the revenue default, by the khatian holder.

3. The river submerged land re-remerged in the year 1987 and since then the successors of the original khatian holder claim to be in possession of the land by paying the Touzi Bahira Revenue.

4. On the other hand, the writ petitioner Hazera Bewa also claims to be in possession of the land, which allegedly was purchased by her father Jyoti Mamud Sheikh from other successors of the khatian holder, during 1983-87. But the private respondents contend that the govt. land could not have been legally sold by the occupier. Moreover the private respondents are not involved with the concerned transactions.

5. When the khatian was cancelled in 1972 and the successors of the khatian holders were found to be in unlawful possession, eviction proceeding was initiated through the Eviction Case No.2(C)/2008-09 and notice(s) were issued on 25.03.2008 (Annexure-B series) by the SDO(Civil), Bilasipara against the private respondents, for their eviction under Rule 18(3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Those eviction notices were challenged and the Case No.80 RA(DBR)/2008 was registered in the Assam Revenue Board.

6. In their appeal, the respondents contended that the Khatian No.100 under the erstwhile Zamindar was issued to Sania Sheikh, the predecessor of the appellants but only because of the submersion of the land by river Champabati, the khatian holder neglected to deposit the revenue and that is how the land was converted to khas. But when the land re-emerged, the successors of the khatian holders again took possession of the land and therefore they should not be treated as encroachers. Being landless people, the appellants also applied for settlement, since they were paying Touzi Bahira Revenue for possessing the govt. land. The writ petitioner was not arrayed in the proceeding before the Revenue Board. But the SDO(Civil), Bilasipara in his report projected that the appellants have failed to pay the land revenue after submerging of the land and that is why the land was converted into Govt. khas category, for default of revenue.

7. After noting the above facts, the Revenue Board quashed the eviction notice(s) issued to the respondents and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to examine the claim of the appellants to restore their patta, through the judgment dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure-C).

8. Following the above order passed by the Revenue Board, the respondents led by Kachimuddin Sheikh (respondent No.7) filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner on 03.04.2010 in pursuant to which, the Settlement Officer, Dhubri passed the order on 09.08.2010 (Annexure-E), whereby restoration of patta in the name of Kachimuddin Sheikh and other legal heirs of the deceased khatian holder, Sania Sheikh, was allowed subject to payment of arrear land revenue.

9. The Settlement Officer’s decision was challenged by the writ petitioner, but the Case No.91 RA(DBR)/2011 was dismissed by the Revenue Board on 26.12.2011 (Annexure-F) by observing that the Settlement Officer decided on the basis of the direction earlier i