Heard S.J. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent No.2 who is the main contesting party is represented by learned advocate Mr. P.C. Goswami.

2. The petitioner purchased land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas through registered Sale Deed No.936/2002 dated 8.2.2002 from Satyajeet Borthakur and she immediately secured possession of the purchased property from the hand of the vendor. Previously the vendor Satyajeet Borthakur had purchased this land from Surendra Nath Bhattacharjee and Pabindra Nath Bhattacharjee through the Sale Deed dated 2.4.2001 and the vendor got mutation of the purchased land, prior to executing the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

3. The land purchased by the petitioner measures 1 Katha 5 Lechas and is covered by Dag No.331 (old). This land under Dag No.331 was amalgamated with land of Dag No.332 in the year 1995 into a consolidated Dag No.2197 (new) covered by Patta No.564 (new) in village Odalbakra in Beltola Mouza of Kamrup District. The conjoint lands of Dag No.332 was owned by siblings (cousin) Kailash Ch. Sarma and Lt. Gopal Priya Devi. The respondent No.2 Kailash Ch. Sarma purchased 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land of Dag No.332 (old) from Gopal Priya Devi through Sale Deed dated 20.9.2001. The total land within Dag No.332 measured 2 Kathas and according to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 couldn’t secure possession of his purchased land.

4. The respondent No.2 filed T.S. No.9/2002 and sought declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas as described in Scheduled-A to the plaint. Since the identification of the land is relevant, the Schedule-A land as described in the plaint in the T.S. 9/2002 filed by Kailash Ch. Sarma (respondent NO.2) is extracted hereinbelow :

“Schedule-A A plot of land measuring 1 Katha and 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.332 K.P. Patta No.112 of Village Odalbakra, Mouza-Beltola, P.S. Dispur in the district of Kamrup, Assam bounded as under : East : Road West : Rudreswar Sama/S.N. Bhattacharyya North : Shri Pradip Bhyan South : Private Road.”

5. For the purchased land of Dag No.331 (old), the petitioner applied for mutation on the strength of his Sale Deed and possession and 1 Katha 5 Lechas land in a portion of Dag No.2197 (new), Dag No.331 (old) was mutated to the applicant by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 21.8.2002. Claiming to be aggrieved by the correction of the Revenue record in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 Kailash Ch. Sarma applied for cancellation of mutation.

6. But the Settlement Officer through his order dated 5.10.2005 (Annexure-7) in the Misc. Case No.81/04-05 rejected the application of respondent No.2 and upheld the mutation granted to the petitioner. The revenue officer recorded the admission of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has possession of the purchased land and that she has clear title of the mutated land on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 8.4.2002. The authority also noted that in T.S. No. 9/2002 the petitioner was not impleaded and the restoration of possession was sought by the plaintiff Kailash Ch. Sarma from the two brothers Biraj Das and Jiban Krishna Das who were the defendants in the case. It was also observed that the status quo order in the T.S. No. 9/2002 can’t apply to the land purchased by the petitioner under old Dag No.331 and accordingly it was held that since the objector (respondent No.2) doesn’t have possession his objection has no legal force. Consequently the Settlement Officer rejected the application of the respondent No.2 for cancellation of mutation and upheld the mutation granted to the petitioner.

7. The aggrieved respondent No.2 challenged the Settlement Officer’s order on mutation by filing Appeal No. 229RA(K)/2005 before the Assam Board of Revenue and through the impugned judgment dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure-8), the learned Board quashed the mutation granted to the petitioner and directed the parties to ma