GUWAHATI, India, May 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. S. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4; and Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2) Bereft of details, it would suffice to mention herein that the appellants had filed a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. (C) No. 4969/2015, to assail multiple orders concerning a mutation dispute between the appellants on one side and the respondent no.3 on the other side. Challenge was made in respect of the following orders, viz.,

(i) order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, in R.A. No. 10/2006;

(ii) order dated 29.04.2015, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Assam, in R.A. No. 66(RA)(L)/2014, whereby the above referred order dated 19.11.2011 was upheld;

(iii) order dated 29.04.2015, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Assam, in Review Petition No. 4(RA)(L)(Rvw)/ 2015, thereby dismissing the review petition; and

(iv) order dated 19.03.2014, passed by the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, by which mutation was granted in favour of the appellants by virtue of purchase and possession in respect of land measuring 2 bigha- 2 katha- 12 lecha, covered by Dag No. 146 and 149 of K.P. Patta No. 51 of village Sinatalia, Mouza- Nakari, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, District- Lakhimpur.

3) The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 20.09.2022. Accordingly, the appellants have preferred this Intra-Court appeal against the said order dated 20.09.2022. The said W.P.(C) No. 4969/2015 was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2022, which is under appeal.

4) Referring to the memo of appeal, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has pressed all the grounds for appeal.

a. The learned Single Judge had erred in placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and in the process, did not consider the contention of the appellants.

b. It was contended that in respect of the order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, the learned Single Judge had given a contradictory finding because on one hand, no infirmity was found in the said order, yet on the other hand, the appellate order by the Board of Revenue, Assam was not interfered with though it had doubted the title of the appellants' vendors.

c. It was contended that in light of section 41 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1891 (hereinafter referred to as 'ALRR, 1891" for brevity), the revenue authorities did not have power to decide the question of title and ought to have relegated the parties to approach the civil court. This aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

d. It was contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider that the appellants' vendor had right, title and interest over the land by virtue of gift made by vendor's uncle-in-law, mother-in-law and brotherin-law and the mutation was made on the basis of their respective endorsement in the chitha.

e. It was contended that in view of the provisions of section 41 of the ALRR, 1891, the revenue authorities could only have decided the question of possession, which was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

f. It was contended that the respondent no. 3 had taken a plea that the land was gifted to her, but her husband had mutated the land in his name and therefore, on such plea, the revenue authorities could not have cancelled the mutation of land in favour of the appellants, which was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfPDpo8uzS3Njv0GzjcK9iDv8C0y9Yvi2yJc54LwvA81L&caseno=WA/353/2022&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010213342022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.