in the gauhati high courtghconline.nic.in/judgment/wpc40822005.pdf · · 2017-07-04rape case. in...

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA

MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM: TRIPURA & ARUNACHAL PRADESH

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005

Smt. Manjula Haque Islam

D/o late Amirul Haque Christian Basti

G.S Road, Guwahati-781 005 Panorama Apartment

Chandmari, Guwahati- 781 003 ….. Petitioner

-Vrs.-

The State of Assam

Represented by The Secretary to the

Department of Revenue, Dispur Guwahati- 781 006

2. The Hon‟ble Board of Revenue, Assam

Guwahati, Panbazar Guwahati- 781 001

3. The Deputy Commissioner

Kamrup (Metro), Panbazar

Guwahati- 781 001

4. The Settlement Officer Re-settlement operation

Govt. of Assam, Ulubari Guwahati- 781 007

5. The Assistant Settlement Officer

Re-settlement Operation In-charge of Japorigog Revenue Village

Ulubari, Guwahati- 781 007

6. The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority,

Represented by its

Chief Executive Officer, Bhangagarh, Guwahati 781 007

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

7. Mustafa Shahidul Islam Ex-MLA

Christian Basti, G.S. Road Guwahati- 781 005

8. Sri Kanakeswar Gogoi

S/o Sri Budu Ram Gogoi Sarumotoria, Guwahati- 781 006 Respondents

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U.B. SAHA

Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. S. Kalita

Advocate for the respondents 1to 5: Mr. Mr. B. N. Gogoi

Govt Advocate

Advocate for the respondent No. 7: Mr. Sheeladitya

Ms T. Goswami Advocate for the respondents

6 & 8: None appears Date of hearing : 25.1. 2011

Date of delivery

of the judgment: 21.07.2011

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

1. The challenge in this writ petition is the judgment, dated

20.5.2005, passed by the Court of the Assam Board of

Revenue, Guwahati, ( hereinafter, for short, referred to as

„Board of Revenue‟), in case No. 107 RA (K)/02 (Annexure-24

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the order, dated

4.10.2002, passed by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati in

R.A. No. 9 of 2002 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition)

upholding the order, dated 18.1.2002, passed by the Asstt.

Settlement Officer, Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2000,

holding, inter alia, that the dispute in between the appellant

and respondent are civil in nature and as such civil court can

decide the title and accordingly the misc. case was disposed of

thereby the appeal filed by the appellant, respondent No.7

herein, was disposed of

2. Heard Mr. S. Kalita, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Shiladitya, learned Counsel appearing for respondent

No.7. Also heard Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Govt. Advocate

appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner, Smt. Manjula Hoque, was

adopted by Md. Amirul Hoque. She happened to be the

daughter of his elder brother who died while Manjula was two

months old and her mother predeceased him just at her birth

time. Since then Majula was living with Amirul Hoque as his

only daughter.

4. Amirul Hoque, a resident of Christianbasti, Guwahati,

had two plots of land measuring 2 katha 15 lechas covering

Dag No. 936, K.P Patta No. 32 and 1 katha 15 lechas covering

Dag No. 935, K.P. Patta No. 305.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

5. Both plots were contiguous situated on G.S. Road,

Christian Basti, Guwahati. In 1 Katha 10 lecha, there was a

big R.C.C. building measuring little less of 500 sq. ft which

was originally used as residence of Amirul Hoque. Smt.

Manjula was brought up there.

6. Respondent 7, Mustafa Shahidul Islam, a Member of

Legislative Assembly (MLA), as he then was, married Manjula

in the year 1988. He was also staying with Manjula at the

residence of Amirul Hoque, father of Manjula. It is stated that

soon thereafter, he started ill-behaving and torturing with

Manjula and her parents to transfer entire landed property of

Amirul Hoque in his name. While said proposal was not

accepted, respondent No.7 implicated Amirul Hoque, in a false

rape case. In the result, Amirul Hoque had to suffer in jail for

forty-five days.

7. Thereafter, Amirul Hoque became ill. Ultimately he

decided to gift out both plots of land in favour of petitioner

and in 1989, he openly declared about gifting of both plots to

his daughter only, as he was not even in a position to take

effective step for transferring the aforesaid plot of land.

8. Upon accepting and taking possession of gifted lands,

Manjula made formal petitions to the Settlement Officer for

mutation. Accordingly, two mutation case No. 3424/92-93 and

3425/92-93 was registered and thereafter, records of

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

aforesaid cases were transferred to the Assistant Settlement

Officer.

9. After considering Lat Mandal‟s report as to the

petitioner‟s possession, the Assistant Settlement Officer vide

order, dated 23.6.1993, granted mutation to the petitioner in

respect of both plots of land and thus aforesaid two plots of

land of Amirul Hoque were transferred in the name of

petitioner. Thus, she became a valid owner, title holder and

possessor of both plots of land. Subsequently, Guwahati

Municipality Corporation (GMC) holding and electricity

connection were also transferred in her name and she has

been paying the land revenue taxes.

10. In 2 katha 15 lechas of land, there were total fifteen

tenants who were shopkeepers at the time of father of the

petitioner. But after mutation being granted to the petitioner,

they came to be under her tenancy.

11. In 1997, as decided, the petitioner and her husband

along with their two minor children and the father of the

petitioner came to MLA Hostel to live there.

12. The RCC building they lived in on 1 katha 10 lechas was

divided into two parts. One part was let out to one Mrs. Gita

Rani Ghosh, proprietress of M/s Ghosh Brother (P) Ltd. and

the other part to one Mrs. Nivedita Baruah, proprietress of M/s

Olivia Motors which was handed over to them by the petitioner

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

in August, 1997 in presence of her husband, respondent No.7,

on monthly rental basis. She also signed two separate lease

deeds in respect of both the tenants and since then, they

possessed the land in question under the tenancy of the

petitioner.

13. At the time of handing over the possession, the

petitioner accepted some advance amounts from Mrs. Nivedita

Baruah and also issued money receipt whereupon the

respondent No.7, the husband of the petitioner put his

signature as a witness.

14. After completion of interior decoration on 12.2.1998, the

petitioner signed two separate Lease Deeds in respect of both

the tenants. Two affidavits were sworn by them recognizing

the tenancy of the petitioner. Copy of the money receipt, two

lease deeds and two affidavits aforementioned are annexed as

Annexure-9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition

15. It is claimed by the petitioner that father of the

petitioner prepared a Deed of Declaration in the form of

Affidavit with regard to his gift, but respondent No.7 took

away the same to destroy the evidence.

16. It is also alleged that respondent No.7 started frequent

torture upon the father of the petitioner. Ultimately, he died

on account of his heart attack at Neurological Hospital,

Guwahati on 20.1.1998.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

17. It is further stated that respondent No.7 then liked to

take hold of gifted landed property of the petitioner and he

also grabbed another plot belonged to one widow Mrs. Sujata

Pathak who later recovered it from him.

18. Thereafter, respondent No. 7 has increased inhuman

tortures upon the petitioner. She fled away from MLA Hostel

and took shelter as guest in another house where she was

advised to build a house in her own land. Accordingly, she

built up a small type Assam house in a corner of the plot of 2

katha 15 lechas with her own money. From September, 1999

she has been staying at her said house with her children.

19. Subsequently, Respondent No.7 also went there along

with his armed house guards who allegedly used them to

detain the petitioner at that house. It is also alleged that

Respondent No. 7 on 27.1.2003 broke open the door of the

house of the petitioner in her absence, looted many valuables

including land documents, bank pass book, many security

deposit certificates etc. and also started staying there with one

widow, namely, Mrs. Runa Begum.

20. In this connection, the petitioner lodged an FIR to the

Officer In-charge, Dispur Police Station, Guwahati which was

registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 87/03 under Sections

454,380,427 IPC, (Annexure -14 to the writ petition).

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

21. One Kanakeswar Gogoi, respondent No.8, then came to

show that a plot measuring 1 katha 10 lechas was sold to

him by the father of the petitioner by a registered deed in

1984 and another plot of land measuring 2 katha 15 lechas

was also sold to him by another registered sale deed in the

year 1995 who sold the same to respondent No.7 in the year

1998. Thus, respondent No.7 claimed mutation striking out

the name of the petitioner from the records of

chitha/jamabandi.

22. During 1997-98-99, the resettlement operation and

survey was going on in the city, Guwahati and taking

advantage of such situation, respondent 7 managed to record

his name as provisional mutator in respect of both plots of

land in the Chitha Book (Field Index) in place of petitioner

and then claimed for formal mutation thereof.

23. It is contended that when the commission of fraud and

cheating of the respondent No.7 and 8 were detected in the

year 2000, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 286 of 2000

before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2 praying

for decree for declaration that aforesaid sale deeds of the

respondent No. 7 are illegal, inoperative and void and also for

confirmation of possession. Respondent No.7 filed counter-

claim praying for a decree for his right, title and interest in

reference of same plots of land. The said suit is still pending.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

24. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner also filed a

misc. (J) case under order 30 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for passing an

ad-interim injunction that was allowed which was challenged

by respondent No 7 before this Court vide MFA No 62 of

2000. While disposing the same, it was ordered to maintain

status quo till finalization of the main suit.

25. However, respondent No.7 submitted a petition to the

Assistant Settlement Officer, Guwahati for granting mutation

in favour of him which was rejected by an order, dated

18.1.2000.

26. Against the order dated 18.1.2000, the respondent No.7

has preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer which was

registered as R.A. Case No. 9 of 2002 which was rejected by

the Settlement Officer by order, dated 4.10.2002, upholding

the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.

27. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Settlement

Officer, respondent No.7 preferred another appeal before the

Board of Revenue which was registered as R.A. 107(K)/2002.

The said case was contested by the petitioner by filing two

sets of written arguments contending, inter alia, that she is

the recorded owner since 1993. The petitioner also submitted

documentary evidence, affidavit sworn by all 17 tenants

showing their possession under her tenancy since 1993.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

28. It is submitted by the petitioner that in course of hearing

of the appeal, the petitioner by filing a petition under Section

141 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulations prayed for

recording the evidence of a number of witnesses on the point

of her title and possession of the land as the Board is

empowered to decide the issue in accordance with the Rule 24

of Board of Revenue Regulation Rule, 1963, but the Board

rejected such petition without showing any reason.

29. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board called for

para wise comments in reference to the appeal of respondent

No.7 and the new Settlement Officer submitted his report on

6.6.2003 stating, inter alia, that after the death of Amirul

Haque, his only daughter Smt. Manjula Hoque‟s name was

mutated. Smt. Manjula‟s name was mutated in Mutation Case

No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93 on 23.6.93. However, during

the field survey under the resettlement operation, the name of

Sri Sahidul Islam was also entered in the same Dag and Patta

No. So both Sri Manjula Hoque and Sri Sahidul Islam‟s

appeared in Dag No. 935 and 936 in KPP 305 and 32

respectively in 1998. But as a matter of fact, the name of

Smt. Manjula Hoque was later struck out from the Dag No.

936 of KP 32 and the respondent No. 7 is in possession and

his possession is continuous.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

30. But it is the case of the petitioner that she is having

three GMC holdings, 2 electricity connections, affidavits of all

17 tenants which show that the petitioner is in active

possession over two plots of land- one measuring 1 katha 10

lecha and 2 katha 15 lechas except 2/3 lecha thereof wherein

the respondent No.7 has been staying in an Assam Type

House belonging to the petitioner since 27.1.2003 and the

respondent No.8 never took over the possession of those

plots of lands and acquired right to sell the lands in question.

31. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed a criminal

complaint against the respondent No. 7 and 8 to the Officer

In-charge, CID Police Station that was registered as CID P.S

case No. 44 of 2002 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B

IPC.

32. It is also alleged by the petitioner that though at the

initial stage, the police was very serious in the process of

investigation, but after few months, they went slow against

respondent No.7. However, respondent No.8 published a news

in a local Assamese daily, namely, „AJI’ declaring that he

neither purchased lands measuring 2 katha 15 lecha and 1

katha 10 lecha from Amirul Haque nor sold them to anyone.

33. The Board of Revenue of Assam ultimately allowed the

appeal preferred by the respondent No 7 by setting aside the

order of the Settlement Officer as noted above.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

34. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Board of

Revenue, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

35. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per

provisions of Chapter VIII of Assam Land and Revenue

Regulations and Board of Revenue Regulation Rule, 1963, the

Board of Revenue has the power to adjudicate any revenue

appellate dispute by way of properly framing the issues in

dispute, taking evidence, examining the real situation,

documents and records etc., but the learned members failed

to act in accordance with aforesaid provisions, thus failed to

appreciate the tenancy of the petitioner and also the mutation

of the land in question granted to the petitioner for which the

limitation period prescribed for two months.

36. It is also stated by the petitioner that Board of Revenue

also did not consider whether the appellant satisfied the

provisions of Chapter-IV, Part-B i.e. the Section 50 to 53 of

Assam Board of Revenue Regulations or not while claiming

mutation to be granted in favour of him when the records

furnished to the Board clearly show that since 1993 till date,

the entire estate is under active possession of the petitioner.

37. It is further stated that the Board of Revenue passed the

impugned judgment on the basis of the report, dated

6.6.2003, submitted by the Settlement Officer which was a

fabricated one and distorted the real facts stating, inter alia,

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

that respondent No.7 has been in possession and his

possession is continuous while the petitioner got her name

mutated at the life time of her father in the year 1993 while

her father died on 20.1.1998, and the said mutation order

dated 23.6.1993 in favour of the petitioner is protected by

Section 153 of Chapter IX of Assam Land & Revenue

Regulation, but the Settlement Officer recorded in his report

that the father of the petitioner died in 1993 and thereafter,

the name of the petitioner got mutated. The petitioner raised

this point by submitting the written argument, but the Board

of Revenue did not discuss the same, rather overlooked it,

therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and

quashed.

38. Further contention of the petitioner is that for the first

time, respondent No.7 raised an issue before the Board of

Revenue alleging that mutation case No. 3424/92-93 was

recorded in the name of one Bijoy Sharma and 3425/92-93

was recorded in the name of one Nripendra Nath Talukdar and

the mutation cases as referred to by the petitioner are false.

But the Board of Revenue, though prayed by the petitioner,

did not call for the records or Register Book of 1993-94, as the

petitioner‟s mutation was made in the month of June, 1993.

The Board of Revenue acted only on the report of the

Settlement Officer that original case records of 3424/92-93

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

and 3425/92-93 are missing and thus held that such

registration numbers are false.

39. It is also contended by the petitioner that though the

Board of Revenue consisted of two Members, but out of them,

one Member heard the appeal preferred by the respondent

No.7 and other Member was absent, but ultimately, the

judgment was pronounced and signed by both the members of

the Board of Revenue, for which the entire proceeding is liable

to be quashed.

40. The petitioner also filed the additional affidavit

contending inter alia, that the transfer of municipal holding in

the name of petitioner was well aware to the respondent No.

7 as on numbers of occasion he deposited the municipal taxes

on behalf of the petitioner which would be evident from

Annexure 1 to 3 to the Additional affidavit filed by the

petitioner and the tax receipt was signed by the respondent

No.7 as depositor on 18.6.1997 and as the owner of the land,

the petitioner leased out in two parts of 1 katta 10 leches to

two tenants, namely, Smt. Nibedita Baruah and Smt. Gitarani

Ghosh, which facts was admitted by the respondent No. 7 in

his affidavit in opposition.

41. Respondent No. 4 has filed the counter affidavit to the

writ petition stating, inter alia, that the mutation in Dag No.

935 and 936 was granted in favour of the petitioner, the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

adopted daughter of pattadar by virtue of gift and possession

by the then Asstt. Settlement Officer in Mutation case No.

3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93 on 23.6.93 and during field

survey under re-settlement operation, name of respondent

No. 7 was mutated in the above Dags by virtue of purchase

by the then Asstt. Settlement Officer.

42. It is further stated by the respondent No. 4 that as per

records, the mutation in the name of respondent No.7 was

granted on the basis of sale Deed No. 4043/98 and 3514/98

of Guwahati Sub-Register Office. The said Sale Deed showed

that respondent No. 7 had purchased the aforesaid plots of

land from respondent No.8.

43. It is also stated that as per link, Sale Deed No. 5445/84

and 299/95 of Sub Registry Office, Guwahati, the respondent

No.8 appeared to have purchased the above plots from Md.

Amirul Haque, father of the petitioner.

44. It is further stated by the respondent No.4 that as per

draft chitha, the name of respondent No.7 was mutated in Dag

No. 936(old), 2451(new) covered by K.P. Patta No. 32(old),

199(new) along with petitioner and in place of her Dag No.

935(old), 2452(new) covered by K.P. Patta No. 305(old),

30(new) of village Japorigog. Thus the name of the petitioner

was struck off from Dag No. 935(old), 2452(new) and land

records were corrected accordingly. It is also stated that the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

dispute over the possession was still on and it changed time

and again. But recently Smt. Manjula Islam has sold 1 katha

10 lechas land under Dag No. 935 of K.P. Patta No. 305 to

Shri Pranab Kumar Ghosh vide Regd. Deed No. 9885 dated

16-08-2005. At present both the purchasers are in possession.

45. Respondent No.7 also filed affidavit in opposition on

denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. But he

admitted that father of the petitioner was the original pattadar

of the aforesaid two plots of lands and he married the

petitioner and out of their wedlock, two children were born.

But he denied his stay with the petitioner at petitioner‟s

father‟s house.

46. Respondent No.7 further contended in his affidavit in

opposition that the father of the petitioner by registered sale

deed dated 7.5.84 sold 1 Katta 10 lechas of land under Dag

No. 935 of K.P Patta No. 305 to respondent No.8 which he

sold to respondent No.7 by a sale deed dated 23.6.98. He also

contended that by another sale deed dated 5.9.95 the father

of the petitioner sold 2Katta 15 lechas of land under Dag No.

936 to respondent No.8 and later on respondent No.8 sold the

same to the respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 thus became

the owner of the entire land together with the house thereon.

Thereafter, he applied for mutation, but as re-settlement

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

process was going on, the same could not be made. But he is

paying the land revenue.

47. It is also contended by the respondent No. 7 that

mutation does not confer title on anybody. Therefore, the

petitioner by obtaining fraudulent mutation in the year 1993

cannot claim ownership over the land on the basis of the said

mutation order in Mutation case No. 3424/92-93 and

3425/92-93 which was not instituted by the petitioner, but by

other two separate persons.

48. The respondent No. 7 has filed another affidavit in

opposition wherein he annexed the final report submitted in

CID police station case. One Grindra Narayan Roy, CID

Inspector of Police, CID P.S submitted the final report on

7.11.07 stating, inter alia, that it is found to be correct that

the accused Mustafa Shahidul Islam (respondent No.7) has

purchased the land, there is no illegality or conspiracy or

cheating in so purchasing the land. This case is an outcome of

misunderstanding between both.

49. Mr. Kalita, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

while urging for the relief sought for submits that admittedly

the land in question for which mutation is sought for by the

petitioner was the land of her father who orally gifted the said

land to the petitioner and oral gift is valid under the provisions

of Sections 147 to 150 of Mahammedan Law for which writing

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

is not necessary. In support of his contention, he relied upon

two decisions of the Apex Court in Mahboob Sahar Vs. Syed

Ismail and ors (1995) 3 SCC 693 and Ram Niwas Todi

and another Vs. Bibi Jabrunnissa and ors, (1996) 6 SCC

444.

50. He further submits that admittedly the land in question

was/is under the possession of the petitioner. He further urges

that the order, dated 23.6.93, in original mutation proceedings

being case No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93 wherein the

prayer for mutation was allowed by the Assistant Settlement

Officer and the order of the Settlement Officer dated,

4.2.2002, in R.A. No. 9 of 2002 affirming the order of the

Assistant Settlement Officer is valid and reasonable.

51. He further submits that the story of selling of landed

property in question by the father of the petitioner to the

respondent No. 8 is nothing but an attempt of fraud on the

part of the respondent No.7, as the respondent No. 8 himself

made a declaration in a local paper “AJI” that he had never

purchased the land at Dag No. 936 Patta No. 32 measuring 2

Katta 15 lechas and Dag No. 935 Patta No 305 measuring 1

Katta 10 lechas from the father of the petitioner at any time

and he also did not sell the same to anybody and he is not

answerable to anybody relating to that land which would be

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

evident from Annexure-6 to the affidavit in reply filed by the

petitioner on 10.12.2007 before this Court.

52. He further contends that the respondent No.7 in his

Memo of appeal stated that after two and half years of the

death of the petitioner‟s father, he first time came to know

about GMC mutation of the petitioner and consequent thereto,

he applied for cancellation of the mutation of the petitioner.

In fact, the respondent No.7 was not only aware about GMC

mutation, but he himself acted as an agent of the petitioner to

deposit the municipality tax in the year 1997, particularly, on

18.6.1997 which will be evident from Annexure-1 to the

affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner and father of the

petitioner died on 20.1.1998, i.e. after the said deposit of the

municipal tax by the respondent No. 7.

53. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that in 1997

during the life time of the father of the petitioner, she became

the owner of the land and house of her father and in that

capacity, she divided the entire RCC building into two parts

and let out one part to Mrs Nivedita Baruah, the proprietress

of M/s Oliva Motors and Mrs. Gita Rani Ghosh, the proprietress

of M/s Ghosh Brothers. The lease deed prepared for that

purpose was signed by the respondent No. 7 as a witness

and advance payment was also received by the petitioner in

respect of such lease which would be evident from the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

contention of respondent No.7 in para-10 of his affidavit

wherein he admitted that contention of the petitioner in

paragraph-8 of the writ petition, inter alia, that in August,

1997, the petitioner having divided her said RCC building at

1 Katta 10 lechas into two parts let out one part to one Mrs

Gita Rani Ghosh, proprietress of M/s Ghosh Brothers and other

part to one Mrs. Nivedita Baruah, the proprietress of M/s

Oliva Motors on monthly rental basis.

54. The learned Counsel further submits that both the

tenants took up their respective possession in the month of

August, 1997 from the petitioner and they took about 6/7

months for interior decoration. At the time of handing over the

possession, the petitioner accepted some advance amounts

from Mrs Nivedita Baruah against issuance of money receipt,

and in the money receipt, the respondent No. 7, the husband

of the petitioner also signed as one of the witness. Thus, he

knew well in 1997 that the petitioner was the owner of such

plots of land. Therefore, the claim of the respondent No.7 that

he was not aware regarding transfer of land to the petitioner

by her father is totally unacceptable.

55. He also submits that in view of Section 148 of the

Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the order dated

23.6.1993 has to be challenged within two months from the

date of such order, but it was not done by the respondent

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

No.7 and at that relevant time, he was admittedly not the

owner of the land as alleged by him, far to question of title

over the land.

56. He further urges, even if for the argument sake

accepted the contention of the respondent No.7 that he

purchased the land from respondent No.8, who allegedly

purchased the land in question from the father of the

petitioner in his life time and the said respondent No.8 again

sold the land to the respondent No.7 in the year 1998, then

also he is not entitled to get mutation as on 23.6.1993, as the

petitioner has become owner of the land in question and the

same has already been mutated in her name which the

respondent No.8 never challenged and he also not challenged

the aforesaid contention of the petitioner in the instant writ

petition by way of filing any counter.

57. Against the decision of the Revenue Board, learned

Counsel also submits that mere Sale Deed is not enough for

getting mutation. Acquiring possession over the land alleged

to have been purchased is a sine qua non for getting mutation

as per Section 50 of the Assam Land Revenue and Regulation

and admittedly the respondent No.7 did not acquire the

possession over the land measuring 1 katta 10 lechas which

would be evident from paragraph-10 of the affidavit in

opposition wherein he admitted the contention of the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

petitioner in paragraph-8 of the writ petition and admittedly

till date the position stands in favour of the writ petitioner.

58. Learned Counsel further submits that the Board of

Revenue failed to take note all those facts though the

petitioner made an application before it for taking evidence.

Learned Counsel would contend that the petitioner lived with

the respondent No.7 along with her father since 1993 to till

August, 1998, and between this time admittedly the

respondent No.7 deposited the municipal tax with the Gauhati

Municipal Corporation on behalf of the petitioner as her agent

and since 1993 to 1998, August, the respondent No.7 never

raised his voice for cancellation of mutation granted in favour

of the petitioner.

59. He further submits that order of mutation passed in

favour of the petitioner cannot be challenged after long eight

years without becoming aggrieved party on the date of cause

of action. Thus the challenge of the respondent No.7 to the

granting of mutation in favour of the petitioner is barred by

law of limitation as prescribed in Section 148 of the Assam

land and Revenue Regulation.

60. Learned Counsel also contends that the Board of

Revenue though constituted by the appropriate authority with

two members but only one learned member heard the appeal

proceedings in absence of other learned member and on that

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

aspect, a specific contention has been made in the writ

petition and learned Govt. Advocate even on direction given

by this Court is not in a position to produce the proceedings

of the revenue appeal wherein the impugned order has been

passed for which it can be presumed that the contention of

the petitioner is correct.

61. He further contended that the father of the petitioner

was the original recorded pattadar of the land in question but

as per the reports and documents available, if accepted, it also

appears that the father of the petitioner sold the land to

respondent No. 8, (the respondent No.5 therein), and the

respondent No.7, (the appellant therein), purchased the said

land from the respondent No.8 by registered sale deed but the

respondent No.8 has got no mutation over the land, the name

of the petitioner (respondent No.1 therein) who is stated to

be only daughter of Amirul Hoque, the original pattadar, has

been mutated in respect of the land in question on

23.6.1993, that also before the death of the father of the

petitioner vide mutation case No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93

which is challenged by the respondent No.7 herein.

62. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent No. 7

has no right to ask for mutation and consequent thereto, the

Board of Revenue has no power to set aside the order of

mutation passed in favour of the petitioner as the alleged Sale

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

Deed was allegedly executed by the respondent No. 8 without

obtaining mandatory sale permission from the District

Revenue Authority as well as Guwahati Municipal Corporation,

which is at present Guwahati Metropolitan Development

Authority under Section 32 of the GMDA Act.

63. His further contention is that the Board of Revenue

failed to appreciate the factual and legal position so far the

order of mutation dated 23.6.1993 is concerned as on that

date or thereafter if anybody is aggrieved by the said order

that was the father of the petitioner who was alive upto

20.1.1998 i.e. about nine years from the date of oral gift and

five years from the date of mutation of the land in the name

of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 never raised his

voice during the life time of the father of the petitioner

questioning the mutation of the land in her name and

admittedly on the date of order of mutation, the respondent

No.7 had no relation with the land in question. He was

completely stranger and even if for the argument sake, it is

admitted that the respondent No.8 might have some

grievances in respect of land measuring 1 katta 10 lechas as

he was allegedly to have been purchased such plot of land in

the year 1984, but the said respondent No. 8 did never

challenge either the oral gift made by the father of the

petitioner to her and consequent thereto, the title over the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

land or the order of mutation which was passed in favour of

the petitioner in the year 1993. The Board of Revenue also

failed to consider all those aspects, the learned Counsel

submits.

64. His another contention is that that though the order of

mutation was passed in favour of the petitioner on 23.6.1993

but the Register of the cases maintained by the Settlement

Officer from the period from 25.4.1993 to 23.6.1993 could be

placed and the Settlement Officer specifically stated in his

comments that the records relating to two relevant cases

wherein the order dated 23.6.1993 was passed are missing,

The learned Revenue Board did not consider those aspects and

the points which was not taken before the Assistant

Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer by the

respondent No. 7 raised before the appellate Court for the

first time and the appellate court, the Board of Revenue

considering those points passed the impugned order which is

wholly unsustainable under the law.

65. The authority who filed the final report in the CID case

as annexed by the respondent No.7 with his affidavit in

opposition cannot also be treated as a document of proving

the status of sale deed or right of the petitioner for the land

on the basis of mutation as ordered by the appropriate

authority, the learned Counsel further submits.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

66. He also submits that the civil suit T.S. No. 286 of 2000

is pending before the learned Civil Judge, No. 2 since 2000 as

filed by the petitioner claiming declaration of her right, title

and interest over the land in question and confirm of

possession.

67. He finally submits that mutation proceeding, title of the

land cannot be decided being the same is only for the purpose

of collection of revenue on consideration of the possession

over the land. Thus it would be proper for this Court to affirm

the order dated 23.6.1993 passed by the Assistant Settlement

Officer in mutation case No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93 and

the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the ASO in Misc. Case

No. 29 of 2000 and the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the

learned Settlement Officer in R.A. 9 of 2002 by setting aside

the order dated 20.5.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue in

107 RA (K)/02.

68. He also refers to the decision in Nar Bahadur Gurung

and ors Vs. Anil Krishna Bhattacharya and ors, AIR 1957

Manipur 25, the Judicial Commissioner‟s Court, while deciding

an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the

District Judge, Manipur in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1955 dismissing

the plaintiff‟s claim for declaration in respect of about 70 paris

(about 175 acres) of land situated at Pangei village, dealt

with Sections 40,50(a) and 53 of the Assam Land Revenue

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

and Regulation and noted that a person who claiming to be

the landlord gives notice to a tenant terminating his tenancy

expressly recognizes that he is a tenant and in the event of a

suit for ejectment being filed the tenant always has the right

to show that the plaintiff is not the landlord. Wrong mutation

cannot, therefore, give the plaintiffs a right to claim a

declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

69. From the aforesaid finding, it cannot be said that even

when a person purchased a land which is not within the

possession of the seller at the relevant time and the purchaser

did never take possession and even formal possession is also

not delivered at the time of sale, mutation cannot be

sanctioned in favour of the purchaser. When the person

having the possession over the land do not claim to be

pattadar of the land, wrong mutation in favour of the

purchaser does not in any way affect their legal character or

right to any property.

70. But in the instant case, it is admitted position that the

land was mutated earlier in favour of the petitioner on the

basis of her possession over the land, even if this Court

considered that the Revenue authority passed the order of

mutation wrongly in favour of the petitioner, then also such

order of mutation may entitled the petitioner to get a

declaration of title over the land subject to she established

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

that land in question has been transferred in her favour by the

original pattadar by way of adducing evidence as the Civil

Court has also the power to cancel the mutation after taking

evidence in a suit where the mutation is also challenged.

71. In the instant case, when the name of the petitioner was

struck out from the revenue record, no notice was issued in

favour of her as required under Section 116 of the Assam

Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

72. In Paramesh Sarmah and ors Vs. Islam Ali and ors,

(2002) 3 GLR 1, a coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing

with the provisions of Sections 40 and 53 of the Assam Land

and Revenue Regulation noted that Section 40 of the Assam

Land and Revenue Regulation provides records of rights. The

Settlement Officers has to frame for each estate a record of

right in the prescribed manner. The record of rights is the

Jamabandi based on the Chitha and Fieldmap. Entry in the

record of rights is to be founded on the basis of actual

possession. Undoubtedly at the time of settlement the

Jamabandi is prepared which records the name of the pattadar

on the basis of possession (see AIR 1967 Assam and Nagaland

9 Abdul Hasen and others vs. Haji Mahiuddin and ors). Section

4(1) (2) read with Section 53 of the Assam Land and Revenue

Regulation raises a presumption regarding possession in

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

favour of recorded pattadar unless rebutted (See 1952 Assam

34, 40, 41 Pratap Chandra Sarma V. Abannth Sarma).

73. Mr. Shiladitya Datta, learned Counsel for the respondent

No.7 while placing reliance on the Sale deed executed

between the respondent 8 and respondent No. 7 would

contend that the Board of Revenue passed the impugned

order very rightly holding that the order of the ASO and SO

are contrary to the records as available.

74. He further submits that admittedly the petitioner and

the respondent No.7 were married and lived together till 1998,

but thereafter separated. He also contended that for the land

in question, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the

municipal holding but the electricity connection is still in the

name of her deceased father.

75. His further contention is that that the respondent No.7 is

paying the land revenue relating to the land in question.

Learned Counsel also denied the contention of Mr. Kalita inter

alia that the petitioner is the recorded owner of the land since

1993. According to him, the petitioner by way of fraud

obtained mutation order from the revenue Authority.

76. He further contended that admittedly there is a civil suit

filed by the petitioner which is still pending and this court also

stayed the impugned order vide its order dated 6.6.2005.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

77. He further contended that mere non-mutation by the

respondent No. 8 would not itself entitled the petitioner to get

mutation for the land in question when the respondent No.8

purchased the said land admittedly prior to 23.6.1993 and he

finally contended that the petitioner made allegation against

the learned Members of the Board of Revenue but none of

them are personally made party in the instant proceeding.

78. He also urges that Jamabandi was prepared at the time

of settlement and name of the pattadar recorded on the basis

of possession. In the instant case, at the time of resettlement

operation, the respondent No.7 was found in possession on

the basis of Sale deed executed by the respondent No. 8 and

his name was provisionally mutated, though his claim for

mutation initially rejected by the ASO and SO, but

subsequently allowed by the appellate authority by passing

impugned judgment. He also submits that wrong mutation

cannot entitle the petitioner to claim title over the land in

question.

79. Mr. Gogoi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the

respondent No.1 to 5 fairly submits that even after full

attempt on his part, he could not collect the record of the

Board of Revenue i.e. the Appellate Court proceedings and

admittedly the Settlement Officer in parawise comments

furnished before the Board of Revenue stated that the record

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

relating to the order of mutation passed by the ASO in favour

of the petitioner is missing and it is also admitted position that

the respondent No.8 did not apply for mutation before the

appropriate authority, even after his purchase.

80. Mr. Gogoi further contended that the mutation in the

name of the respondent No.7 was granted on the basis of sale

deed No. 4043 and 3514 of Gauhati Sub-Registrar Office as

executed by the respondent No.8, he finally contended that

admittedly the respondent 1,2,3 and 5 have not filed their

respective counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the writ

petitioner. Hence, the Court may pass any order appropriate

in accordance with law.

81. In the instant case, questions arise for decisions are as

follows:

(1) Whether on the date of order of mutation in favour of

the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 had/have any

cause of right to challenge the order of mutation

granted in favour of petitioner;

(2) Whether the order of the Board of Revenue is hit by

the provisions of Section 148 of the Assam Land and

Revenue Regulations?

(3) Whether the impugned order is also sustainable due

to non-production of relevant Register wherein the

relevant order dated 23.6.1993 was passed by the

ASO in favour of the petitioner?

82. Before dealing with the submission of the learned

Counsel of the parties, it would be proper for the Court to

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

discuss about the order passed by the learned Assistant

Settlement Officer, Guwahati in Case No. 3424/92-93 and

3425/92-93 (Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition

respectively), wherein it is specifically stated that the case

was registered on the application of the petitioner for

mutation of the land of 2katta 15 lechas and 1katta 10

lechas under Dag No. 936, K.P patta No. 32 and Dag No. 935,

K.P patta No. 305 respectively in Japorigog, Mouza- Beltola

on the basis of gift and possession and on perusal of the

report of the process server stating that notice on behalf of

both sides received by the applicant. ASO also has perused

the report of the Lat Mandal, copy of Jamabandi and Gift

Deed and considering that the petitioner is the only daughter

of the registered Pattadar, Amirul Hoque and as there is no

other child of the pattadar other than the petitioner and no

dispute regarding the possession of the land, mutation was

allowed in the name of the petitioner regarding the aforesaid

plots of land of Amirul Hoque and such order was not

admittedly challenged before 2002 by the respondent No.7

and there is limitation prescribed for making a prayer for

cancellation of the mutation under Section 148 of the Assam

Land and Revenue Regulation which is not admittedly made

neither by respondent No.7 nor respondent No.8.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

83. Respondent No.8 by a statement in a local daily, AJI,

inter alia, stated that he has not purchased the land in

question from the original pattadar, Amirul Haque, the father

of the petitioner, and also did not sell the said land to anybody

as well as he is also not answerable so far as the said land is

concerned. The said publication is not denied by the

respondent No.7. Therefore a doubt has been created

regarding the said sale in the mind of this court. But a writ

court cannot decide whether a sale deed is a genuine one or

not. The appropriate forum is the civil court and so far as the

land in dispute is concerned, there is a civil case pending

before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, No. 2, Kamrup,

Guwahati. Thus it would not be proper to make any comment

regarding the said sale deed.

84. As the question in this case is the mutation which was

ordered in favour of the petitioner and subsequently on the

basis of the prayer of the respondent No.7, the same was

cancelled. Therefore, it would be proper for this court to

restrain itself within the question of limitation.

85. Mutation is nothing but record of rights which is to be

founded on the basis of actual possession. In the instant

case, it is evident from the affidavit in opposition of the

respondent No.4, the Settlement Officer, that the petitioner

was granted mutation in Misc. Case No. 3424/92-93 and

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

3425/92-93 on 23.6.1993 and she has subsequently sold a

plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lechas to one Pranab Kumar

Ghosh under Dag No. 935, K.P. Patta No. 305 by a sale deed

No. 9885 on 16.8.2005 who is now in possession.

86. In case of Abdul Hasem and ors Vs. Haji Mahiuddin

and ors, AIR 1967 Assam and Nagaland 9, a Division Bench

of this Court headed by Mr. Justice G. Mehrotra, Chief Justice

the then, while dealing with a dispute relating to joint landed

property discussed regarding Jamabandi and stated that

entries in the record-of-rights are to be founded on the basis

of actual possession. Undoubtedly at the time of settlement,

the jamabandi is prepared which records the name of the

pattadars on the basis of possession. But in respect of the

annual patta the entry is bound to change from year to year.

It is also noted that when the land is an annual patta land, the

settlement entry of cannot be conclusive proof of the fact that

all along the patta was in the name of Mahiuddin.

87. In Sukumari Dev & ors Vs. On the death of

Manindra Ch. Dev, his legal heirs Madan Dev and ors,

(1991) 1 GLR 236, a coordinate Bench discussed about the

provisions of Section 154 (1)(c) of the Assam Land and

Revenue Regulation, 1886 as well as Section 62 of the said

Regulation and held that civil court is the best authority to

decide the title over property to any person and can also

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

direct cancellation of mutation in the revenue record and that

Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886

is not a bar for issuing such a direction for cancellation. It is

further held that entry in the revenue record does not confer

any title on any person and at best it a piece of evidence.

88. In Dayal Hari Paul & ors Vs. Pradip Kumar Lahkar

& ors, 2006 (3) GLT 680, a coordinate Bench of this Court

while dealing with the provisions of Section 50 of Assam Land

and Revenue Regulation, 1886, held that order of mutation is

only to facilitate payment of land revenue and the Revenue

Court is not entitled to decide the title in respect of landed

property which is the subject matter of Civil Court. The Apex

Court also in various decisions held that the order of mutation

does not confer any title. (See Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder

Kaur and ors, 1996(6) SCC 223.

89. Before cancellation of the mutation of the land as

recorded in favour of the petitioner, the Revenue Board should

have consulted the Municipal record and the statement of

witnesses and when admittedly the respondent No. 8 did not

get the possession of land in question before sale of the land

in question to respondent No.7, the duty of the learned

Revenue Board was to examine the witnesses and also to

consider the enquiry report relating to the possession over the

land in question.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

90. It also appears from record that the dispute over

possession was still on and it was challenged time and again.

It cannot be said that at the relevant time of mutation in the

year 1993, neither the respondent No.7 nor the respondent

No. 8 was in possession and being possession is the sine qua

non for mutation of record of right, according to this Court,

the Assistant Settlement Officer on proper enquiry of the Lat

Mandal report rightly mutated the land in favour of the

petitioner.

91. As the respondent No.8 by way of paper statement

made it clear that in no way he is involved with the land in

question as he neither purchased the said land from the

original pattadar, the father of the petitioner nor sold the

same to the respondent No.7, therefore, his possession over

the land in question does not arise at all. And when the

respondent No.8 was not in possession, admittedly, at the

time of execution of the alleged sale deed in favour of the

respondent No.7 and thereafter till 2002, the respondent No.7

was also not in possession, particularly, when he himself

deposited the municipal taxes in the name of the petitioner

with the GMDA, then it can be easily held by this Court that

the Respondent No.7 was aware about the oral gift as well as

order of mutation in the year 1993 and subsequent recording

the municipal holding in favour of the petitioner as he himself

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

deposited the amount with the GNDA in favour of the

petitioner. The contention of the petitioner to that aspect has

also not been reverted by the respondent No.7.

92. This Court is also further opinion that the investigating

authority of the case filed by the petitioner in the CID police

station is not authorized to decide regarding the genuineness

of the sale deed executed allegedly in favour of the

respondent No.7 by the respondent No.8 and also relating to

the possession over the land, as that was not subject matter

of that case.

93. In Mahboob Sahab (supra), the Apex Court considered

the essential requirement so far as the validity of a gift under

the provisions of Mohammedan law and said that it is essential

to the validity of a gift that the donor should divest himself

completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of

the gift as required under Section 148 and also said that under

Section 147 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla, 19th

Edn. Edited by Chief Justice M. Hidayatulla, envisages that

writing is not essential to the validity of a gift either of

moveable or of immovable property. The Apex Court also held

that it would, thus, be clear that though gift by a

Mohammedan is not required to be in writing and

consequently need not be registered under the Registration

Act; for a gift to be complete, there should be a declaration of

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

the gift by the donor; acceptance of the gift, expressed or

implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and delivery of

possession of the property, the subject-matter of the gift by

the donor to the donee. The donee should take delivery of the

possession of that property either actually or constructively.

On proof of these essential conditions, the gift becomes

complete and valid. In case of immovable property in the

possession of the donor, he should completely divest himself

physically of the subject of the gift. No evidence has been

adduced to establish declaration of the gift, acceptance of the

gift by or on behalf of the minor or delivery of possession or

taking possession or who had accepted the gift actually or

constructively.

94. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the

original pattadar/ donor Amirul Haque never raised his voice

regarding mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner

during his life time and it is also admitted position that the

donee petitioner had also taken possession of the land in

question in the life time of donor and entered with an

agreement with the tenants of the donor in his life time in

which the respondent No.7 was admittedly an witness.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the land in question was not

gifted with the petitioner donee by her father donor.

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

95. From the aforesaid decision in Mahboob Sahab,

(supra), the contention of Mr. Kalita, inter alia, that gift by a

mahammedan to another Mohammedan is not required to be

in writing and consequently need not be registered under the

Registration Act and gift being completed after taking

possession by the petitioner herein, has some force.

96. In Ram Niwas Todi and another (supra), the Apex

Court again reiterated the principle relating to gift made by a

Mohammedan would prevail over the provisions in the tenancy

laws, which required occupancy rights to be transferred by

means of a registered deed. It also noted that it was

unnecessary for the High Court entering into such controversy

and putting the tenancy laws at a disadvantage over Muslim

personal law.

97. In the instant case, once the land is mutated in the

name of the petitioner being donated by her father on the

basis of oral gift, and mutated in her favour during the life

time of her father, the same cannot be questioned by

subsequent application by any other person after the period

of limitation as prescribed under Section 148 of the Assam

Land and Revenue Regulation unless the land is in possession

of latter person and land is registered to him by person in

whose name the land is mutated in the revenue record though

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

the latter has the right to claim title over the land in question

by filing a declaration suit in a appropriate case.

98. In the instant case, the possession of the petitioner over

the land in question on the date of mutation in her name is an

admitted fact that would be evident from the pleadings of the

respondent No.4 who in his affidavit specifically stated that a

part of land has already been transferred to one Mr. Pranab

Kumar Ghosh who is in possession in the said land.

99. The Board of Revenue being a quasi judicial authority is

obviously not the necessary party and the Apex Court in Smt.

Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun & ors,

AIR 1997 SC 3397 noted that it is not proper or even justified

on the part of the appellant to implead the Courts as

respondents, but obviously a tribunal can be a party when

there is specific allegations made against such tribunal or its

member either regarding jurisdiction or allegations of

biasness.

100. In the instant case, in the writ petition, specific

allegations were made regarding functioning of the Board of

Revenue, but the Board of Revenue does not feel it necessary

to file any counter, though represented by the learned Govt.

Advocate. Not only that, the learned Govt. Advocate also

failed to produce the record relating to the mutation

proceedings as well as the appeal proceedings wherein the

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the Court can

presume that the allegations of the petitioner are correct

though it is denied by the respondent No.7.

101. In para-wise comments supplied by the Settlement

Officer as asked by Board of Revenue, it is specifically stated

that record relating to the order of mutation passed by the

ASO in favour of the petitioner is missing, then how the Board

of Revenue came to the conclusion that the order dated

23.6.1993 is illegal and consequent thereto, set aside the

same. In its order, the Board of Revenue also did not

discuss the reason that the order of Assistant Settlement

Officer and Settlement Officer dated 23.6.1993 and 4.10.2002

respectively are wrong except stating that the Settlement

Officer has failed to apply his mind when Settlement Officer in

his order gave the reasons for upholding the order of

Assistant Settlement Officer.

102. Section 53 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation

says about the presumption regarding the possession in

favour of the recorded pattadar unless reverted. Learned

Board of Revenue while deciding relating to the prayer for

mutation by the respondent No.7 did not consider the said

aspect of the matter and according to this Court, non-

consideration of the relevant document with regard to the

presumption disentitled the Board of Revenue to pass such

W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 of 42

order. The Board of Revenue only considered the question of

mutation as prescribed under Section 50 of the Assam Land

and Revenue Regulation, 1886 to facilitate the payment of the

land revenue and did not decide the question of title as the

Revenue Board is not entitled to decide title in respect of

landed property. In the instant case, the Revenue Board failed

to consider what should be the necessary requirement for

granting mutation.

103. In view of the above, the impugned order dated

20.5.2005 of the Board of Revenue is set aside. Consequent

thereto, the order dated 4.10.02 passed by the Settlement

Officer, Guwahati in R.A 9 of 2002 and the order dated

23.6.93 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO),

Guwahati in Mutation Case No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93

and the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the ASO, Guwahati

in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2000 are affirmed.

104. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of

stay passed earlier by this Court shall stand vacated. No order

as to costs.

JUDGE

mdn

in the gauhati high courtghconline.nic.in/judgment/wpc40822005.pdf · · 2017-07-04rape case. in...

Documents