Heard Mr. S. Sattar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. R. De. The respondent No.8 is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia.

2. This is a mutation dispute in respect of inherited property and the litigating parties are the successors of the original owner Nilakanta Gohain Baruah. The predecessor died in 1952 and he was survived by 5 sons and 6 daughters, including Smt. Kunwari Baruah (respondent No.8). The following family tree will be of help in understanding the respective position of the litigants:-

3. On the demise of Late Nilakanta Gohain Baruah, the names of 4 sons (barring 3rd son Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah), together with one daughter Smt. Kunwari Baruah were mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the estate measuring 3 Bigha 4 Katha 16 Lecha covered by Dag No.195, K.P. Patta No.187, of Village-Sowkham of Mouza-Nakari in Lakhimpur district. The reason for exclusion of the 3rd son (Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah) in the mutation exercise is not very clear. But the reflection of the name of Smt. Kunwari Baruah along with the four sons is projected to be on account of gift of the 1/5th share inherited by Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah, to Smt. Kunwari Baruah and her husband Lekhaneswar Baruah. However, the petitioner as the son of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah contends that his father was not aware of the exclusion as the eldest legal heir Rudrakanta Gohain Baruah, had arranged for the mutation in 1962, after the predecessor died.

4. Aggrieved by exclusion of his name as a lawful successor, Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah applied for inclusion of his name leading to registration of the Mutation Case No.173/87-88. In that proceeding, the mutation plea of the 3rd son was allowed on 7.7.1988 by the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur and accordingly the name of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah was included with the others, in the Revenue records of the ancestral property.

5. Twenty years after the mutation, the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 questioned the validity of the above inclusion order before the Assam Board of Revenue by filing an application under Section 151 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation”). This application was registered as the Revenue Case No.129 RA(L)/2010. The affidavit sworn before the Notary by Smt. Kunwari Baruah (respondent No.8) was enclosed to the application filed in the Revenue Board and in that affidavit, the deponent stated that she was gifted the 1/5th share by the 3rd son Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah and that is how she and her husband Lekhaneswar Baruah’s names were included and the name of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah was excluded, at the time of initial correction of the Revenue records.

6. The learned Revenue Board accepted that Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah gifted 1/5th share of the property to Smt. Kunwari Baruah and her husband Lekhaneswar Baruah and accordingly it was concluded that inclusion of the name of the gift giver, as the inheritor of the family property, is wholly unjustified. The Chairman of the Revenue Board also observed that unless the name of Smt. Kunwari Baruah and her husband are struck off, the name of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah could not have been mutated. On that basis, the Circle Officer’s order passed on 7.7.1988 in the Mutation Case No.173/87–88 was set aside with the observation that the share of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah in the inherited property has devolved on Smt. Kunwari Baruah and her husband.

7.1 The intervention of the Revenue Board in the mutation proceeding