JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging, interaliaa judgment dated 18.09.2017, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Appeal Case No. 55RA(N)/2015 by which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed. The appeal was preferred against an order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (herein after ADC) (Revenue), Nagaon whereby the Chitha Mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the name of the original pattadar was restored.

2. Before going to the impugned judgment and the grounds of challenge, it would be convenient to narrate the brief facts of the case.

3. It is the projected case of the petitioner that vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2007, the petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 16 Lechas from the original vendor Krishnaram Keot. Pursuant to the said purchase, vide order dated 22.08.2008, Chitha Mutation was done in favour of the petitioner.

4. After the aforesaid process was over, two sons of the original vendor along with another person had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Kaliabor Revenue Circle for cancellation of mutation in favour of the petitioner which was registered as Case No. 9/2008-09. The aforesaid case, however was withdrawn vide an order dated 15.10.2009. Long thereafter, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon again for cancellation of mutation and restoration of the name of the original vendor. The petitioner has projected the said respondent nos. 4 to 7 as strangers and was not related at all to the vendor of the petitioner Krishnaram Keot. The respondent nos. 4 to 7 however claimed that they were residing on the aforesaid plot of land for a long period of time and the land in question was orally gifted to them by the vendor Krishnaram Keot. The aforesaid application however was disposed of without giving the petitioner any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and subsequently vide order dated 07.03.2015, the said application was allowed and the mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Another pertinent point which the said respondent nos. 4 to 7 had raised was that the original vendor had died in the year 1965.

5. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid projection regarding the death of the original vendor in 1965 was wholly incorrect and the actual date of death was 07.01.2008.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue (herein after ABR) which as observed above vide the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2017 has dismissed the appeal. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid judgment by which the order dated 07.03.2015 of the learned ADC, Nagaon was confirmed which has been questioned in this writ petition.

7. I have heard Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the State respondents were represented by Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Shri P. Sundi, the learned counsel.

8. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned ADC as well as the learned ABR had failed to appreciate the fact that the entire exercise of filing an application for cancellation of mutation by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was backed by ulterior motive and there was no bona fide at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relief sought for by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 is not to record their names but that of the original vendor who they claimed had passed away in 1965.

He further submits that apart from the fact that the legal heirs of the original vendor who may be deemed to be competent to raise any issue regarding the sale of the plot of land to the petitioner had withdrawn the case no. 9/2008-09 vide order dated 15.10.2009, the said legal heirs had also instituted T.S. 1(K)/2016 for cancellation of the