The Board of Revenue has the power to set aside a sale under S. 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, even though an application for setting aside the sale under S. 81 of the Regulation is barred by limitation.

SADANANDASWAMY, J.:- The Division Bench which heard these writ petitions was of the opinion that they involve an interpretation as to the scope and extent of S. 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the light of the observations in Civil Rules Nos. 202 and 203 of 1965 disposed of on 31-5-1967, Civil Rule No. 312 of 1971 disposed of on 8th June, 1973 and Civil Rule No. 93 of 1971 disposed of on 11-5-1973. Hence these writ petitions have been referred to this Bench.

2. A plot of land measuring 4 kathas 2 lechas covered by Dag No. 405, Patta No. 120 of Mowkhowa Mouza, Golaghat Town, originally belonged to Abdul Sattar and Smt. Ayesha Bibi and in a part of the said land there is a building known as Tokani building. The building was in the occupation of some tenants at the relevant time. In respect of the said land arrears of land revenue for some years accrued and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Golaghat-started a sale proceeding, namely, Land Sale Case No. 546/68-69 for bringing the land to sale by public auction. The said sale case was conducted by the Bakijai Officer and the formalities prior to sale were carried out by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Golaghat. With regard to the service of sale notice, the process server is alleged to have gone to the land and, not having found the original pattadars of the land, the notice was served by hanging it on the property in the presence of some of the witnesses including the present petitioner. Thereafter, the process-server sent his report to the Sub-Divisional Officer to that effect. The land was sold by public auction on 16-1-1969 and the highest bid of Rs. 1,401/- offered by the petitioner was accepted. The necessary deposits were made by the petitioner and after the expiry of 60 days from the date of sale it was duly confirmed.

3. On behalf of respondent No. 4, the Dacca Patty Masjid, its Secretary Abdul Jalil Bhuyan filed an application before the Board of Revenue, Assam under S. 81 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation read with S. 5 of the Lim. Act on 11-6-1971 alleging that about 1 katha of the land in question was gifted orally to the Masjid by the original pattadars in accordance with Mohammedan Law, that the said Masjid was in possession of a part of the land during the relevant time and that due to the default made by the Masjid in respect of the payment of land revenue, there was an arrear of revenue in respect of the land in question, that the provisions of Ss.70 and 72 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation were not complied with by publication of the notice of sale in the official Gazette. It was also contended that the present petitioner was a tenant in respect of a portion of a building standing on the land in question, that he deliberately defaulted in payment of rent for the years 1965-66 and 1967-68 and due to the fraud played by the petitioner the land was ultimately sold in auction. The Secretary of the Masjid alleged further that he came to know about the auction sale only on 22-3-1971 when he learnt of the notice issued on behalf of the petitioner to Sashi Bhushan Bakshi, another tenant on the premises, asking him to pay the rent to the petitioner who claimed to have purchased the land and the building in public auction. It was also alleged that the value of the land and the property standing thereon would be about Rupees two lakhs, that the auction sale was held in clear violation of the provisions of the Regulation and that the Masjid had no knowledge of the sale prior to 22-3-1971. The said application was numbered as Case No. 176RA/71. Respondent No. 5 claims to be another tenant residing in the premises standing on the land sold and he made a similar application. His application was registered as case No. 177 RA/71 before the Board of Revenue and a common order was passed by the Board in both the cases.

4. The petitioner entered appearance in the cases and filed an affidavit-in-opposition alleging, among other things, that no part of