The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the extraordinary remedy granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the need to balance legal formulations with equity, and the court's role in ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing for all parties involved in a dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.155 RA(K)/2003 whereby the learned Assam Board of Revenue disposed of the said appeal by directing the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M) to re-examine the settlement made in respect of the entire 3 Kathas 5 Lechas of land covered by Dag No.489 and also various other enquiries were directed to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M).

2. Before dealing with the facts involved in the instant writ petition, it is relevant to take note of that by way of the instant writ petition, what the petitioners are seeking is a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2010 passed in Case No.155 RA(K)/2003 by the learned Assam Board of Revenue. In that perspective therefore, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the law as regards the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another Vs. Bikartan Das and Others reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 996 the Supreme Court laid down that there are two basic principles which needs to be kept in mind while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court while issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. Paragraph Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of the said judgment being relevant are quoted here in below:

“50. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context :

Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.

51. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking.

52. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.”

3. In the backdrop of the above principles, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts involved in the instant case. The Respondent No