The intentional suppression of material facts and lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioners led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

Heard Shri Biswajit Debnath, the petitioner no. 4 in person. Also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1 whereas Shri S. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri AI Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Considering the nature of grievances as well as in view of the fact that a preliminary objection has been raised questioning the maintainability of the writ petition, the matter has been taken up for hearing at the admission stage.

3. Before going to the issue raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to place on record the brief facts of the case.

4. A proceeding was initiated by the respondent no. 4 before the Circle Officer, Lanka whereby the jamabandi in respect of the writ petitioners was challenged. In the said proceeding which was registered as Misc. Case No. 3/2015-16, the Circle Officer, Lanka has passed an order dtd. 13/2/2017 whereby the application of the respondent no. 4 was allowed and the jamabandi in respect of the writ petitioners was cancelled. Against the aforesaid order, the writ petitioners had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hojai which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 4/2017. The Additional Deputy Commissioner vide an order dtd. 4/4/2018 had remanded the matter for a fresh consideration to the Circle Officer. However, the said order dtd. 4/4/2018 was put to challenge by the present writ petitioners in an earlier round of writ petition which was registered as WP(C)/532/2019. The primary contention of the writ petitioners was that they were not given proper opportunity. This Court had allowed the said writ petition vide an order dtd. 15/2/2019 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hojai. On such remand, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hojai after consideration of the case had passed an order dtd. 8/7/2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed. It is the said order dtd. 8/7/2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

5. The petitioner no. 4 has submitted that he is appearing in person and also representing the other petitioners. The issue as to whether the petitioner, who is not a counsel can represent the other petitioners would be decided at a later stage. The contention of the petitioners is that the submissions made before the learned Deputy Commissioner have not been considered in its proper perspective. He further submits that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given an effective hearing. Allegation of violation of the fundamental rights including the rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been made with the contention that the petitioners have not been treated equally. It is further submitted that in the impugned order, no reasons have been recorded and even the counter claim has not been considered. It is further contended that an order dtd. 2/11/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate in a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the CrPC has also been put to challenge.

6. Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has however submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable for more than one count. He submits that against the order dtd. 8/7/2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, an appeal is available in the Assam Board of Revenue and without taking recourse to the said provision of appeal, the instant writ petition has been filed. It has further been submitted that the petition has been filed by suppressing material facts which have been pointed out in the objection filed by the private respondent no. 4. It has also been submitted that without any proper authority, the petitioner no. 4 cannot represent the other petitioners.

7. Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 by drawing the attention of this Cour