P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, in Case No. 51 RA(K)/2004 upholding the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in connection with Misc. Case No. 7/2001-2002.

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are residents of Village Niz-Hajo and legal heirs of late Chittaranjan Das (a lineal descendent of late Lakhipati Das) who died, on 30.7.2005 after hearing and before the pronouncement of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. The petitioners and the respondents are the owners and possessors of their respective shares of land measuring 1 katha, 1.5 lechas in respect of the plot of land measuring 2 kathas, 3 lechas covered by Dag No. 836 of K.P. Patta No. 31 of Niz-Hajo village under Hajo Mouza in Kamrup district. The respondents filed an application for cancellation of the name of Sri Chittaranjan Das, husband of the petitioner No. 1, whose name appeared in the Khiraj Patta No. 31, Dag No. 836. The petitioner contested the petition made by the respondents for deletion of his name from the land record. While disposing of the petition vide order dated 12.11.2001 it has been recorded by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, that both the parties are in possession of the disputed land and it was ordered that the possession of Sri Sambhu Ram Das in respect of the suit land be maintained and Sri Chittaranjan Das cannot interfere with the land in question as Sri Sambhu Ram was in possession of the land on the date of the order i.e. 12.11.2001. The respondents did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, but they filed a petition under Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, for striking out the names of the petitioners from General Register. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner while disposing of the said application vide order dated 3.3.2004 observed that the Circle Officer erred in inserting the names of the opposite parties (present petitioners) in the Jamabandi without hearing the parties and ignoring the due process of law and held that the name of the opposite party Sri Chittaranjan Das (present petitioner) is liable to be cancelled from the said Jamabandi forthwith.

Against the aforesaid order dated 3.3.2004 the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue and the same was disposed of by the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 upholding the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner.

3. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel submits that the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, is appealable under the existing provision in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and, as such, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner should not have entertained the petition filed by the respondents and passed the order dated 3.3.2004. He has referred to Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. It is also submitted by Mr. Sarma that the petitioners are still in possession of land in dispute and the right, title and interest of the parties involved in the land in question can be determined by the appropriate civil Court only and the learned Deputy Commissioner or for that matter the Board of Revenue has no power to decide the right, title and interest of the parties.

4. I have carefully gone through the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner(K) as well as the impugned judgment dated 23.5.2006.

5. The crux of the matter is to find out whether the parties concerned are in possession of land in dispute. From the order