1. This is an appeal on behalf of several persons whose specific interests in the land are not given, challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong dated 24-4-1951, wherein he says that 'eviction is to be carried out and possession given to the old settlers.....'. It appears from the order sheet that the Deputy Commissioner took this action on a report of the Sub-Deputy Collector of Dhing being Report No. 224 (D. O) dated 23-4-1951. That report deals with evictions of trespassers or encroachers as a body. Therefore we cannot exactly say who are the persons affected by this order except that the appellants claimed to be affected by it.
2. Mr. Ghose appearing for the appellants has urged before me that the order of the Deputy Commissioner itself would indicate that the land has been previously settled with some other persons and as such the order of eviction does not come under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules and in support of his contention he has drawn my attention to the decisions in two o the earlier cases of this Court which, however, are not reported.
3. I have given my best consideration to the argument of Mr. Ghose and I find that the present case is distinguishable from the earlier decisions. In this case apparently no settlement was made with any other party and this land curved out of village grazing reserves, was included in a colonization scheme for the purpose of making it available for settlement and some landless persons were allotted specific plots therein under a definite scheme. As a matter of fact, it is admitted that no patta was issued in the name of any other person nor any settlement made. The case would be clearly covered by Rule 16 of the Settlement Rules and the Government has a right to make provision for settlement with respect to any special area on a definite policy and on written application alone and the Deputy Commissioner may, thereafter, by general or special order, exclude any person or all persons from entering into possession of such lands until a lease has been granted to them. The appellants presumably belong to this class of persons. In this view, the order is perfectly legitimate under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules and the eviction order was quite justified.
4. Mr. J.C. Medhi sought leave of this Court to appear on behalf of some of the persons who had interest in the land and his contention has been that Rule 18 provides eviction from Khas lands to which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, landholder or settlement-holder and in this case admittedly no person had till the date of eviction acquired any of those rights and eviction under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules was perfectly justified. It appears from the record that the appellants had been already evicted out of this reserved area.
5. I have already given my reasons for holding that the order of eviction was justified and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. I leave it to the Deputy Commissioner concerned to decide as to who raised the crops on the disputed land and the security money should be reimbursed to the persons who are found to have actually raised the crops.