Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking the intervention of this Court for directing the Collector, Dhubri District (respondent 2) to correct the land records in accordance with the precept dated 28-3-2003 issued by the Execution court, namely, the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Dhubri) in Title Execution Case No. 17 of 2002 in pursuance of the decree dated 5-4-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 206 of 1988 and. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in-interest after getting settlement under Gouripur Estate, had been in possession of the plot of land measuring 18 lecha under Dag No. 231, Khatian No. 1 situate at Bidyapara, Dhubri town ("the suit land" for short) with the houses standing thereon since the three generation for over one hundred years, and had accordingly acquired a valid title thereon. However, during the last settlement operation, the suit land was erroneously recorded as khas land which prompted the respondent No. 2 and 3 to threaten eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners from the suit land. This compelled the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to institute T.S. No. 206 of 1988 against the State-respondents before the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri for declaration of his title to the suit land, for permanent injunction and for correction of the land record. During the pendency of the suit, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners died whereupon he was substituted by the petitioners as his legal heirs. After completion of the trial, the learned Munsiff passed the judgment dated 5-4-1994 decreeing the suit by declaring, among others, that the petitioners are the tenants of the State of Assam and are entitled to correction of the land record in the names of their names.

2. In terms of the aforesaid decree, the petitioners filed an execution petition being Title Execution No. 17/2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Dhubri for correction of the land records in respect of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge by the order dated 28-3-2003 issued the precept upon the respondent No. 2 for effecting correction of the land records pertaining to the suit land in accordance with the decree and submit compliance report to him on or before 28-4-2003. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the respondent No. 2 received the precept, he has not corrected the land records till now. The petitioners also personally approached the respondent No. 2 from time to time to that effect, but to no avail. When the respondent No. 2 did not cause correction of the land records even after the lapse of considerable period of time, they are approaching this Court by way of this writ petition for appropriate directions.

3. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed by any of the respondent authorities. However, they contest the writ petition through Mr. D. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department. After hearing both Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether, on the undisputed facts on record, a writ of mandamus can be issued requiring the respondent No. 2 to carry out the precept issued by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Execution Court) in accordance with the decree passed by a competent civil court of jurisdiction? At this stage, it may be noticed that none of the defendants including the State of Assam has never challenged the decree in question at any time so much so that the decree can now be said to have attained finality. It may also be noticed that in the title suit, the State of Assam was represented by none other than the respondent No. 2.

4. In the instant case, the remedy sought for by the petitioners is correction of the land records in respect of the suit land in their names and to issue Patta the