JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Mr. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9; Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7; and Mr. G. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/NHIDCL, representing respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari/mandamus and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners, namely, Lt. Moslem Uddin Ahmed, was the absolute owner of the land measuring 51 Bighas 3 Kathas and 11 lessas at village Koreya Pahar under Boitamari Revenue Circle in the District of Bongaigaon, Assam. In the year 1961, final Khatian was also issued in favour of said Lt. Moslem Uddin Ahmed. But, in the said final Khatian, the name of “Secretary Dong Committee” was also wrongly been recorded along with the name of the original Khatiandar-Moslem Uddin Ahmed. The father of the petitioners, accordingly, possessed the entire land till his death and was paying land revenue to the competent authority, who issued land holding certificate in his name on 11.02.2004. But after the death of the father of the petitioners, the name of Secretary/President of the so called ”Achoni Ambari Dong Committee” had recorded their names for their wrongful gain in place of the deceased father of the petitioners. But within 3 (three) months, the name of the 3 (three) petitioners were recorded in the Record of Right (Jamabandi) by right of inheritance. Accordingly, till the year 2019, the petitioners were possessing the land peacefully without any disturbance from any corner. But, suddenly, in the middle part of the year 2019, the President/Secretary of said Committee filed a time barred petition before the Circle Officer, Boitamari, for mutation and in pursuant to the said petition, the Circle Officer registered a Misc. Case no. 17/2019 and issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners, accordingly, appeared before the Circle Officer in Misc. Case No. 17/2019 and contested the case. During the pendency of the said Misc. Case No. 17/2019, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.07.2019 before the respondent no. 2 with a prayer for passing necessary order not to proceed with the case no. 17/2019, which is still pending without assigning any valid reason.

4. It is stated that the petitioners were regularly appearing before the Circle Officer, Boitamari, in connection with Misc. Case No. 17/2019 and dates were fixed on 09.07.2019, 15.07.2019 & 30.07.2019. But, before 30.07.2019, the matter was transferred to respondent No. 3 without any intimation to the petitioners, which was registered as Revenue Appeal Case No. 01/2019, and the respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioners on 18.07.2019 for their appearance on 20.07.2019, i.e. after only 1 (one) day. But on the next date, i.e. on 19.07.2019, the process server submitted a report to the respondent No. 3 to the effect that although the process server visited the village of the petitioners on 19.07.2019 to serve the notice, dated 18.07.2019, but the notice could not be served as he could not met them. But, the respondent No. 3, without considering the report of the process server, passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2019 in the Revenue Appeal No. 01/2019, whereby, the respondent No. 4 was directed to strike out the name of the petitioners from the land record and asked to mutate the land in the names of the private respondents/defendants. The names of the private respondents/ defendants were accordingly mutated by violating the judicial order dated 22.07.2019, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 49/2019, arising out of Title Suit No. 59/2019.

5. It is to be mentioned here that, th