Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The challenge made in this writ petition is the judgment and order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Appeal Case No. 68 RA (K)/2000 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati in Revenue Appeal No. 57/94-95, by which, the order of mutation granted in favour of the petitioners in place of the names of their deceased predecessors in interest, by way of inheritance was set aside. The petitioners and the respondents are the sons of Late Tarun Deka and Late Nagendra Deka except the petitioner No. 6, who is widow of Late Tarun Deka. Tarun and Nagendra are brothers, whose father was Late Rohini Deka. He was the permanent resident of Village-Manaha Kachari and owned and possessed land measuring about 88 bighas in Village-Dakshin Dimoria and Uttar Dimoria under Dimoria Mouza. He died in 1960 leaving his two sons, namely, Tarun and Nagendra who became the joint owners in equal shares of the said land. It is admitted in the writ petition that both during their life time sold some portions of the land to the proforma respondents and thereafter about 47 bighas 2 kathas 4 lessas remained under their joint possession.

2. Nagendra died in 1984 leaving behind the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and Late Urmila Deka his widow and accordingly their names were duly mutated in place of Late Nagendra vide order dated 12.9.1989. Tarun also died in 1983 leaving behind the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 surreptitiously filed an application before the Circle Officer claiming mutation of their names in place of Late Tarun and by order dated 25.9.1993, the Circle Officer allowed the said prayer. Consequently, their names were mutated on 8.10.1993. According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 alone cannot be legal heirs of Tarun as the petitioners are also Class-1 legal heirs of Tarun.

3. The petitioners filed an application before the Circle Officer, Sonapur for cancellation of the mutation in the names of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and to mutate their names in place of their predecessors in interest Late Tarun. The said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 43/1994 and the Circle Officer by his order dated 4.3.1995 rejected the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati, which was numbered as revenue Appeal No. 57/1995. On being transferred to the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, the said appeal was heard by him and by order dated 26.5.2000 allowed the appeal setting aside the mutation in the name of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. Thereafter, it was the turn of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 along with their mother to file an appeal in the Assam Board of revenue, which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 68RA(K)/2000. The appeal having been allowed by judgment and order dated 14.12.2005, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

4. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury along with Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. Having appreciated their arguments during the course of hearing and on perusal of the entire materials on record including the records received from the Board of Revenue, my conclusion and findings are as follows:

5. Although the petitioners have stated about rejection of their Misc. Case No. 43/1994 by the Circle Officer, Sonapur upholding the mutation in favour of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, but copy of the said order has not been annexed to the writ petition. However, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents produced the copy of the said order during the course of hearing. The English version of the said order passed in Assamese is as follows:

The petitioner and the Opp. Parties are present Seen the report of Lat Mandal. Notice duly served. Heard