The court emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted, as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari have been invoked by way of the instant writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 passed in Case No. 117RA(K)/2004 as well as the judgment and order dated 16.06.2009 passed in Case No. 13RA(K)(RVW)/2007 by the learned Assam Board of Revenue.

2. The facts involved in the instant case as could be discerned from the writ petition is that one Prabhat Rangpi (since deceased) was the tenant under Late Md. Hussain who was the landlord of a cultivable plot of land measuring 4 Bighas covered by KP Patta No. 100 of Dag No. 14(old)/703(new) of village Pamohi under Mouza Ramcharani, in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam. It has been alleged in the writ petition that during the lifetime of Late Prabhat Rangpi, he was a occupancy tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short “the Act of 1971”). Late Prabhat Rangpi had paid regular Chukani i.e. 1/5th of the produce of his land cultivated by himself for the land and he was issued a Khatian No. 54. After the death of Late Prabhat Rangpi, his sons i.e. the Petitioners herein applied for mutation by virtue of inheritance. The competent authority on completion of all formalities, granted mutation on 19.08.1995 and the names of the Petitioners were entered into Ryoti Khatian on 08.07.1997 by striking off the name of Late Prabhat Chandra Rangpi. It was further stated that during the lifetime of Late Prabhat Chandra Rangpi, he was paying the Chukani from time to time to Md. Bahar Ali who on receipt of the said Chukani duly acknowledged the same. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners were also paying the land revenue from time to time.

3. The Petitioners thereupon filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in 1995 for ownership right over the land. The said application was registered and numbered as Case No. 66/1995. The Additional Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 29.09.1995 whereby the ownership right was granted to the Petitioners and the Petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.146/- as compensation by treasury challan and upon payment, a copy of treasury challan was directed to be deposited before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioners deposited the amount of Rs.146/- by treasury challan to the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch as compensation on 13.10.1995 under the head of account 8443 Revenue Department and a receipt thereof was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati as was directed in the said order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 29.09.1995 in Case No. 66/1995.

4. The Respondent No. 1 Md. Bahar Ali who was the owner of the land filed an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue against the order dated 29.09.1995 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. The said appeal was registered and numbered as Case No. 188RA(K)/1995. Vide a judgment and order dated 14.03.1997, the learned Assam Board of Revenue set aside the said order dated 29.09.1995 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and remanded the matter back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for re-examination afresh.

5. It is further seen from the records that on receipt of the case on remand, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup asked both the parties to adduce evidence. The Petitioners herein examined 3 (three) witnesses and the Respondent No. 1 herein adduced the evidence of 2 (two) witnesses. The Respondent No. 1 had also filed some documents in support of his case. Pursuant thereto, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup vide an order dated 07.09.2004 upheld the earlier ex-parte order dated 29.09.1995 granting ownership rights in respect to the land in favour of the Petitioners herein.

6. The Respondent No. 1 herein being aggrieve