The main legal point established is that the power to decide adverse possession and right, title, and interest issues is vested in the civil court and not the revenue court.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The challenge made in this writ petition is the judgment and order of the Revenue Board reversing the order of the Revenue Authorities allowing mutation in favour of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, his father Late Dimbeswar Hazarika had been in possession of the land in question. After the demise of his father, the petitioner is in possession of the land. Such possession is stated to be from 1935 continuously and without any interruption. It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired right, title and interest over the land by way of adverse possession and by operation of Section 27 of the Indian Mutation Act. The petitioner has constructed residential house over the plot of land which is also bounded by brick walls. The petitioner has been paying dues like land revenue, municipal taxes, electricity charge etc. to the authorities.

3. The private respondents herein are the heirs of Late Nabin Saikia, who died interested on 19.3.1999. Late Nabin Saikia, Late Hem Chandra Saikia and Sri Surendra Nath Saikia were brothers and co-sharers of the plot of land. Their father was Late Holiram Saikia. The husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondents No. 2 to 6 Late Nabin Saikia instituted Title Suit No. 4/1956 as plaintiffs against the father of the writ petitioner Late Dimbeswar Hazarika for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner applied for mutation of the suit land in his name vide Mutation Case No. 51/1955-56.

4. The aforesaid title suit was contested by the father of the petitioner claiming adverse possession over the land and also on the ground of the suit being barred by limitation. The title suit was dismissed on withdrawal towards which late Nabin Saikia filed application in 1963 with liberty to file a fresh suit, if so advised. The prayer was allowed by order dated 27.3.1963. It is the case of the petitioner that the right, title and interest of the co-sharers Late Hem Chandra Saikia and Late Surendra Nath Saikia got extinguished and merged with their brother Late Nabin Saikia. In other words the order dated 27.3.1963 binds the other two brothers as well.

5. After the withdrawal of the title suit, no fresh suit was filed. However, one Lakhi Prasad Lahkar claiming to have purchased part of the land in question from the pattadar Nabin Saikia filed Title Suit No. 51/1971 for permanent injunction over 2 kathas of the land out of the total land. The suit was dismissed on contest on 23.6.1977. Being aggrieved, Title Appeal No. 21/1977 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 16.6.1980. Thereafter, said Lakhi Prasad Lahkar filed Title Suit No. 6/1985 in respect of the aforesaid two kathas of land, which was also dismissed on ground of being barred by res-judicata.

6. In the year 2002, to be precise on 14.8.2002, the petitioner filed an application before the revenue authority for mutation of his name in respect of the land in question. The application was registered and numbered as Mutation Case No. 176/2002-03 in the Court of the Circle Officer, Tezpur. The Circle Officer by his order dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure-E) granted the mutation in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Sonitpur being R.A. No. 2/2003. The appeal was also dismissed by order dated 27.1.2004 upholding the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur. Thereafter, the respondents preferred appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue being 33 RA(SR) 2005. The appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2006, inter alia providing that while the possession of the petitioner over the land in question will continue until the same is otherwise decided by the competent Civil Court, in the event of approach being made by either parties. Hence this writ petition.

7. While it is the case of the petitioner that in view of long possessi