The court established that the Board had the power to entertain an application under Section 151 of the Regulations, even if an appeal under Section 147 had not been preferred against the order, and that there was no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of powers under Section 151.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This writ petition has put to challenge the order, on 10.8.2008, passed, in Revenue Appeal No. 123(K)/2007, by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, admitting the appeal, preferred by the respondents herein, after lapse of 3 years 4 months 13 days, against the order, dated 31.1.2004, passed by the respondent No. 15, namely, Settlement Officer, Karimganj, in Misc. Case No. 17/1998, whereby the respondent No. 15 had directed correction of the record of rights by cancelling the names of the present appellants and restoring the patta, in question, in favour of the respondents.

2. I have heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also heard Mr. R. Bora, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

3. Two important questions have been raised in this writ petition, namely, (i) when an order is appealable under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations ('the Regulations'), whether an application is maintainable under Section 141 of the Regulations; and (ii) when Section148 of the Regulations prescribes the period of limitation in respect of appeals, which may be preferred under Section 147, whether such period of limitation would also be applicable to the applications made under Section 151 of the Regulations.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that since the order, which stood impugned in the appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, is an order, which is appealable under Section 147, the respondents could have filed an appeal under Section 148 and the learned Board of Revenue could not have, therefore, entertained the application, in question, made under Section 151, merely because of the fact that this application had mentioned that it was an appeal under Section 151. Mr. Talukdar points out that when the respondents realized that their right to file an appeal under Section 147 stood barred by the period of limitation prescribed by Section 148, they preferred an appeal under Section 151 of the Regulations and thereby circumvented the provisions of Section 147 and, when considered in this light, it becomes clear that the application, made by the respondents herein, under Section 151, was not maintainable inasmuch as Section 151 will apply only to those cases, where there is no right of appeal under the Regulations. This apart, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 148, according to Mr. Talukdar, applies even to an application made under Section 151.

5. While considering the submissions made above, what needs to be noted is that Section 151 of the Regulations vests, in the Board, the power to call for any proceedings held by any officer subordinate to it and pass such order(s) thereon as it thinks fit. Section 151 of the Regulations does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of jurisdiction. No other provisions, contained in the Regulations, prescribe any period of limitation in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Regulations. The language, employed by Section 151, clearly shows that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 151 of the Regulations is supervisory in nature and it can, therefore, be exercised by the Board on its own motion or on an application made by the aggrieved party. When the Board finds any material irregularity or illegality in the proceedings held by any officer subordinate to it, it has the power to call, on its own motion, the records of such proceedings and correct the same. In other words, if the Board, in a given case, discovers any material irregularity or illegality in the proceedings, it has the jurisdiction to interfere with such an error even if no appeal has been preferred, under Section 147, against such an order. This exercise of jurisdiction by the Board under Section 151 is not controlled by the provisions of Section 147 and/or Section 148.

6. It is contended by Mr. Talukd