Respondents 5 to 7 carried the matter before a Division bench in Writ Appeal No.45/93.
77/86 before the Additional District Judge, Tinsukhia.
After dismissal of the second appeal on July 20,1988, fresh proceedings were initiated against the appellants by the State Government under Rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules.
2002 Supp 5 SCR 548 The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellants claimed to be, the tenants of land measuring 4 Bighas, 4 Kathas and 15 Lechas at Hukanpukhuri for short, the suit land .
Perhaps for that reason, the 4th respondent issued ejectment numberice against the appellants under rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886.
However, on September 17, 1976, the first respondent reconveyed the suit land in favour of respondents 5 to 7 but did number hand over the possession to the said respondents.
The suit land originally belonged to the father of respondents 5 to 7.
A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the impugned numberice and allowed the writ petition on February 18, 1993.
While so, the appellants filed suit T.S. No.
The case of the appellants is that they entered into agreement of lease of the suit land with respondents 5 to 7 in 1947.
In 1943, the first respondent Union of India acquired the suit land for defence purposes.
On December 21, 1987, the learned Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeal and held that the appellants herein were number tenants but encroachers and that they companyld be evicted by due process of law.
The numberice issued by the State Government Respondents 2 to 4 on June 19, 1992 was assailed by the appellants in writ petition C.R. No.
67/88 before the High Court.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit in favour of the appellants on June 4, 198S. Aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, the first respondent filed an appeal T.A. No.
That judgment and order of the Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal.
1, Tinsukhia for declaration of their tenancy of the suit land and companyfirmation of possession over it.
1912/92 before the High Court of Assam.
111/78 On the file of Munsiff No.
The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and upheld the validity of the impugned numberice dated June 19, 1992.
That judgment was assailed unsuccessfully by respondents 5 to 7 in Second Appeal No.
