Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners assisted by Mr. S.K. Deka, Advocate as well as Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for all the respondents, assisted by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Writ Appeal 16/2011 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2011 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the WP (C) 5920/2010, where challenge was made to the Notices dtd. 27.09.2010 and 30.10.10 of the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle, by which the appellants were directed to vacate the Government land measuring 33 Bighas 4 Kathas 13 Lechas. The tagged matter i.e. WP(C) 2709/2015 primarily questions the constitutional validity of Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, primarily sub-rule(2) thereof, to the extent that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it stands to confer arbitrary and unbridled power on the Deputy Commissioner to declare an occupant of the land as an encroacher, if in his opinion such person has not acquired the right of a proprietor, land holder or a settlement holder and order him to vacate the land forthwith. The absence of any provision in sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 providing for issuance of a show-cause notice to the alleged encroacher and the absence of any opportunity made available to the alleged encroacher to address on a bonafide claim to the property, is stated to be antithetical to the rule of law, so jealously guarded by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, in the course of hearing of the present cases, the challenge to the vires of Rule 18 was not taken forward for the moment, leaving adjudication only in respect of WA16/2011. We proceed accordingly.

2. Facts stated are the appellant No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is the owner of Dilli Tea Estate, located at Parbatpur, District Dibrugarh. Besides other tea garden land, it has retained possession over a plot of land measuring 33 Bighas 4 Kathas 13 Lechas, covered by Dag Nos. 125, 163, 164, 194 of Village Dilli Tea Estate, Mouza Jeypore. According to the appellants, said land has been under its occupation since last 100 years, originally cultivated by one Naga Hill Tea Company Ltd. and which Company stood merged with appellant No. 1 in the year 1980. In the year 2007, the appellants were served with notice by the concerned respondent authorities in respect of an ejectment case and were directed to vacate the said parcel of land. It is stated that the appellants had made proposal to make over land of equal area from the other land belonging to the appellant No. 1, by way of exchange, in the event it was found that the appellants did not have any right over the said plot of land. Further case is that the matter with regard to exchange of land had received due consideration of the respondent authorities and in that regard a Report dated 28.10.2009 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Dibrugarh. At the stage when the matter with regard to exchange of land was pending, the appellant was served with the first impugned notice dated 27.09.2010, issued under the hand of the Circle Officer, Naharkatia Revenue Circle, directing the appellant Company to vacate the aforesaid land, which is roadside reserved land, illegally occupied by the appellant Company. The said notice indicated that in the event the house/shop/crop/tea plants etc. are not removed from the land in question, the appellants will be evicted by using force and will also be fined. This was followed by the second impugned notice dated 30.10.2010 by the same authority informing the appellants that the appellants will be evicted from the said roadside encroached land on 04.11.2010. Challenging the aforesaid two notices, the appellants instituted WP (C) 5920/2010 on 02