IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate authority is required to make a reasoned decision on mutation appeals, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.) :

Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department, Government of Assam; Ms. M. Barman, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction upon the respondent No.3 to comply with the direction passed by the respondent No.2 in Revenue Appeal No.17/2019-20 dated 27.01.2021 and for other consequential reliefs.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners claim that they are the owners of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 762 and included in Patta No.177 of Revenue Village-Niz Bangshar under Mouza-Pub Bangshar under Revenue Circle-Hajo. The name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners one Tarani Haloi (since deceased) was duly mutated in the record of rights. In addition to that, another 5 lechas and 1 katha of land in the same Dag and Patta were mutated in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 20.04.1998 and 15.03.2000 respectively. According to the petitioners, after the death of their predecessor-in-interest, the petitioners are the owners of 2 kathas 15 lechas of land of the said Dag and Patta. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Hajo Revenue Circle seeking mutation of the said land which the petitioners claim to be their land on the ground of inheritance by Mutation Case No.85/2018-19. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 had mutated the name of the respondent No.4 in respect to the said land which the petitioners claim to be their land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner No.2 preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon) on 12.09.2019. The said Appeal was registered and numbered as Revenue Appeal No.17/19-20. The said Appeal was disposed of by hearing both the parties vide an order dated 27.01.2021. A perusal of the said order so passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon) shows that the learned Appellate Authority found no document in the name of the respondent No.4 and thereupon directed the respondent No.4 to file a case before the Civil Court. The respondent No.4 thereupon filed a Review Application. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon) thereupon vide an order dated the 24.05.2021 observed that there was no basis found for granting mutation in favour of the respondent No.4 and further directed the respondent No.4 to file case before the higher Court. The petitioners thereupon represented before the respondent No.3 for compliance with the said orders dated 27.01.2021 and 24.05.2021 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon). However, as the respondent No.3 did not take any steps in that regard, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the instant proceedings and also given my anxious consideration to their submissions. This Court has duly perused the orders dated 27.01.2021 as well as the 24.05.2021 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon). It surprises this Court to take note of that the concerned authority who is a statutory Appellate Authority did not decide the Appeal wherein the question was involved as to whether the mutation granted in favour of the respondent No.4 was in accordance with the provisions of law. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Amingaon) vide the orders only observed that there was no record available to show that the respondent No.4 could have been granted mutation. However, the order of mutation so granted in favour of the respondent No.4 was not set aside. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that no direction