Heard Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State respondents are represented by Mr. J Handique, the learned Govt. Advocate, while the respondent No.3 is represented by Dr. G Lal, Advocate.

2. The matter pertains to a mutation dispute and the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure-5) in Case No.R.A.(K)-11/2009, rendered by the Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Board’), whereby the Appeal filed by the respondent No.3 against the order of the Settlement Officer dated 31.12.2008, granting mutation to the petitioner was allowed and the impugned order of the Settlement Officer was quashed by the Revenue Board.

3. The original pattadar of the land measuring 5 Bighas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.565 of Periodic Patta No.32 of village Hengrabari under Beltola Mouza was Late Hema Prabha Choudhury, wife of Late Rohini Kumar Choudhury. The petitioner bases his claim as the grandson of the original pattadar, through his father Late Prabin Choudhury.

4. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 Smti Sagarika Basumatary purchased the land through two sale deeds dated 4.9.2007 and 11.9.2007, executed by the three vendors, namely, Renu Das, Dwijen Das and Bikramjit Kakati through their attorney Padmeswar Basumatary. Earlier these 3 vendors purchased the land in the year 1987 from Naren Sarma and the 3 purchasers were granted chitha mutation of the purchased land on 18.2.2000. The vendor Naren Sarma derived title through the sale deed No.6580 of 1984 executed by Dhiren Choudhury, who too is a son of the original pattadar Late Hema Prabha Choudhury.

5. After the respondent No.3 came to possess the land in the year 2007 through the two sale deeds executed in her favour, chitha mutation was granted on 16.10.2007 on the basis of her possession. But claiming to be ½ owner of the land purchased by the respondent No.3 Smti Sagarika Basumatary (who derived title from Late Dhiren Choudhury, son of Late Hema Prabha Choudhury), the petitioner gave an application on 26.11.2007 (Annexure-1) before the Settlement Officer, Guwahati for mutation of his share of the land as the ½ owner of the family land owned by his grandmother Hema Prabha Choudhury. But although in the meantime the entire land measuring 5 Bighas 10 Lechas was mutated on 16.10.2007 in favour of the purchaser Sagarika Basumatary (respondent No.3), the petitioner omitted to mention the chitha mutation granted to the bonafide purchaser. More importantly the recorded land owner who was in possession of the purchased land was not even mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner on 26.11.2007 (Annexure-1) before the Settlement Officer.

6. The petitioner’s application for mutation was registered as Misc. Case No.59/07-08 and the Settlement Officer through his judgment dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure-2) concluded without any material that the original pattadar Late Hema Prabha Choudhury had two sons, namely, Dhiren Choudhury and Prabin Choudhury (ignoring the other 5 sons) and that the petitioners father Prabin Choudhury is ½ owner of the 5 Bighas 10 Lechas land owned by Late Hema Prabha Choudhury. Accordingly the Settlement Officer declared that the petitioner’s uncle Dhiren Choudhury could not have sold the entire land measuring 5 Bighas 10 Lechas to Naren Sarma through the sale deed No.6580/1984 and accordingly it was declared that the respondent No.3 could not have derived title over the entire land owned by the petitioner’s grandmother Late Hema Prabha Choudhury.

7. In their objection before the Settlement Officer, the respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner if aggrieved by the mutation granted to the respondent No.3, he could have applied for cancellation of mutation under Sub-section (2) of section 53A of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886. However purportedly exercising his inherent power under Section 151 of the Land & Revenue Regulation, the Settlement Officer cancelled the mutation granted, firstly to