Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 15 as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Although, an interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent Nos. 7 to 15, for vacating the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner, but as the adjudication, as to whether the interim order is required to be maintained or not, would require this Court to go into the question of existence of any legal right of the petitioner and this Court deems it appropriate that the entire writ petition be taken for its final consideration. The petitioner was allotted a plot of land named as Bheti No. 48 in the Samorali Bazar, measuring 25 X 50 feet for doing his business and in respect of the said land a patta in the name of the petitioner was issued by the then Executive Officer/Ex-officio Secretary, Binnakandi Anchalik Panchayat, Daboka, Nagaon. It is also stated that the said patta was given to the petitioner by the order dated 04.02.1999 under the signature of the aforesaid authority of Binnakandi Anchalik Panchayat. It was also stated that by another order dated 21.07.2010 given under the signature of the Executive Officer and Ex-Officio Secretary of Anchalik Panchayat, the petitioner was allowed to construct a temporarily RCC structure in the Bheti No. 48 for doing his business. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Rule 18(2)/18(3) of the Land Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Hojai Sankardev Nagar, by which, pursuant to Encroachment Case No. 15/2015, the petitioner had been directed forthwith to vacate the possession of the said land in question. It is stated in the said notice dated 01.12.2015 that as per the report of the Circle Sub-Deputy Collector, the petitioner has been possessing the aforesaid Government land without any authority and accordingly the petitioner was directed to vacate the land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has a bona fide claim over the land. It is contended by the petitioner that the bona fide claim of the petitioner flows from the aforesaid order dated 04.02.1999 of the Executive Officer/Ex-officio Secretary of Binnakandi Anchalik Panchayat and the subsequent order dated 21.07.2010 of the said Executive Officer, whereby the petitioner was allotted the plot of land and was allowed to construct certain temporary structure. On the basis of the aforesaid submission of the petitioner, the question for determination before this court, is as to whether an authority being the Executive Officer of a Anchalik Panchayat is the appropriate authority to grant patta in respect of Government land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Baruah v. Komai Baruah & Ors, 2016 (4) GLT 680, wherein, in paragraph-10 this court was pleased to hold that patta number is nothing but the serial number of the lease deed issued by the Government. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks to make a submission that the patta allotted to the petitioner by the Executive Officer of the Binnakandi Anchalik Panchayat is a serial number of the lease issued by the Government.

4. Learned counsel also relies upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Shri Kamala Kanta Deka v. The State of Assam & Ors reported in 1983 (2) GLR 258, wherein, in paragraph 9, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that Rule 18(2) is a lethal weapon or a summary remedy, which can be restored by the authority only when a person has entered possession of land that has been previously reserved for roads, roadside lands or grazing of village cattle or for other public purposes or has entered into possession of land from which he has been e