Heard Mr. B. Ullah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The legal heirs of late Tafazzul Islam Saikia (respondent No.3) are represented by the learned counsel Mr. Z. Mukit. The learned Govt. advocate Mr. J. Handique appears for the Addl. D.C., Lakhimpur (respondent No.2).

2. The petitioner is the youngest and unmarried daughter of late Tafazzul Islam Saikia, who was the owner of land measuring 4 kathas 7 lechas covered by Dag No.917 of K.P. Patta No.82 of 1st Part Map of North Lakhimpur Town of Lakhimpur Mouza. A portion of this land measuring 336 sq.ft. encompassing 2 rooms plus 12’ x 9’ veranda was orally gifted by the father in the year 1991 and the petitioner accepted the gift and took possession of the gifted property. In the gifted premises, the daughter started a tailoring establishment under the name and style “Farnaz Fashion and Designer”. Subsequently the father acknowledged the oral gift, through written document executed on 01.11.1996.

3. After receiving the valuable gift from her father, the petitioner applied for mutation under Section 50 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Regulation”) and in the resultant Mutation Case No.229/2002 an order was passed on 18.07.2002 (Annexure-I), whereby the Circle Officer noted the succession and the possession of the daughter over the gifted property and accordingly mutation was granted in respect of the property measuring 336 sq.ft. out of the total 4 kathas 7 lechas land owned by the father.

4. Being purportedly aggrieved by the mutation order, the donor applied for cancellation of mutation on 20.03.2006 (Annexure-II), where the father claimed that he has not executed any deed of gift and accordingly projected that the mutation order was secured by the petitioner by producing forged document. In the resultant Revenue Appeal Case No.6/2003, an order was passed on 23.02.2006 (Annexure-III) by the Addl. D.C., North Lakhimpur, where the officer noted that oral gift is valid under the Mohammedan Law and once the 3 essential ingredients of a gift is complete and possession is obtained prior to execution of the written document on the basis of the oral gift, the mutation granted to the petitioner by the Circle Officer was found to be in order and accordingly the father’s appeal under Section 147 of the Revenue Regulation was dismissed through the order dated 23.02.2006 (Annexure-III) by the Addl. D.C.

5. The appellate authority’s order was assailed by respondent No.3 in the Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Board”), where the petitioner appeared. In the case No.85 RA(L)/06, the approach of the Revenue Board was different. The document executed by the father on 01.11.1996 was considered to be the gift deed and since this was an unregistered document, the Revenue Board opined that this cannot confer a valid transfer to the daughter. Accordingly on this basis despite observing that daughter is in possession of the land, the mutation order passed in her favour by the Circle Officer and the Addl. D.C. was set aside by the Revenue Board, through the impugned order dated 06.05.2008 (Annexure-IV). 6.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned order, Mr. B. Ullah, the learned counsel submits that a fundamental error was committed by the Revenue Board by construing the written document of 01.11.1996 to be the gift deed. The petitioner submits the daughter was orally gifted a portion of the father’s property in the year 1991, whereafter, she took possession and the document written by the donor on 01.11.1996 simply acknowledges the previous oral gift and the succession is not based on the written document. Therefore the petitioner argues that since it was an oral gift by a Mohammedan father to his unmarried daughter, the rigors of transfer through a registered instrument specified in Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the “T.P. Act”) will not apply t