Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Government Advocate, Assam. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 permitting the private respondent No. 7 to become owner of the land by depositing 50 times of the annual revenue through Treasury Challan. The case of the petitioner is that a notice was received by the writ petitioner on 21.06.2007 in Tenancy Case No. 41 of 2007 wherein no next date of the said case was mentioned and no copy of application filed by the respondent No. 7 before the Deputy Commissioner praying for ownership right was annexed. On receipt of such notice the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) on 21.07.2007 asking for copy of application as well as documents if any submitted by the private respondent No. 7 and to permit him one month time to file objection.

2. This application was filed on 23.07.2007 though it was prepared on 21.07.2007 and it appears from the order sheet annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4 series that thereafter on 20.08.2007 the first party (respondent No. 7 herein) was present, but the present writ petitioner being the second party did not appear. The case was accordingly fixed on 27.08.2007 on which date also the present petitioner remained absent without any step and the first party (respondent No. 7 herein) was present. Thus after putting up appearance in the month of July, 2007, the petitioner did not appear on subsequent two dates and under such circumstances, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 07.09.2007 ex-parte against the present petitioner giving permission to the respondent No. 7 to obtain ownership rights under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (herein after referred to after as 'the Act') by depositing 50 times of the Annual Revenue through Treasury Challan. The order is available at page 34 of the writ petition. From the recital of the order, it appears that circle officer submitted a report in this case and in term of the said report, it came to light that the land was Government ceiling land and was previously allotted to respondent No. 7. Later on in the final order of the case name of the present petitioner was mentioned as allottee and accordingly, the land records were corrected. This is how the present petitioner became owner. Admittedly notice was duly served on the petitioner and since he did not appear on subsequent dates after putting up appearance on 23.07.2007 the Additional Deputy Commissioner had to pass an order.

3. It is stated at the Bar that after passing of the said order respondent No. 7 deposited the required revenue and thereupon, the ownership right of the respondent No. 7 has been confirmed. The aforesaid order dated 07.09.2007 has been brought under challenge before this Court. In course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was passed without jurisdiction in view of the fact that Section 23 conferred power on the Deputy Commissioner only to pass necessary order for conferring ownership right on a occupancy tenant and not on Additional Deputy Commissioner. But here in this case whole proceeding was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and as such the proceeding was void for being without jurisdiction. The second point urged by Mr. Roy is that the notice referred to above which was served by the petitioner and pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the authority on 23.07.2007 by filing application praying for time as well as copy of application and documents if any did not bear any date and as such it was no notice in the eye of law and consequently the whole proceeding was vitiated for the valuation of the natural justice.

4