The court upheld that absence from a proceeding does not invalidate subsequent orders if due process was followed and no legal obligation existed for inclusion of all parties.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief:

“Under the circumstances, it is prayed that your Lordship's may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus shall not be issued quashing and setting aside the (I) judgment and order dated 5-3-2012 passed in 3RA (Review) of 2012 by the Assam Revenue Board and (II) judgment and order dated 12-10-2011 passed in Revenue Appeal No.8 RA(N)/2011 by the Assam Revenue Board and/or the order dated 28- 09-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in N R K Case No. 49 of 2006- 07 shall not be upheld and/or as to why a further direction shall not be issued to stay the operation of impugned judgment and order dated 12-10-2011 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 8 RA(N)/2011 and/or as to why any other order or direction shall not be issued giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and after hearing the parties and on perusal of records be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and/or pass such further or other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

-AND-

Pending disposal of this petition the further operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue at Guwahati may kindly be stayed.”

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the co-pattadars in respect of a plot of land in the district of Nagaon. However, in the year 1996-97, the names of the private respondent nos. 3 and 4 were mutated. The said mutation order was the subject matter of challenge in NRK Case No. 49/2006-07 and vide an order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Nagaon, the said mutation in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was cancelled. The aforesaid order of the learned ADC, Nagaon, was the subject matter of challenge in Revenue Appeal No. 8 RA(N)/2011 instituted in the learned Assam Board of Revenue (ABR). The learned ABR, vide order dated 12.10.2011 had allowed the appeal.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of they being co-pattadars, they were not made parties in the revenue appeal for which, they have preferred a review petition, being Case No. 3 RA (N) (RVW)/2012 which was also dismissed by the learned ABR vide order dated 05.03.2012. It is these 2 orders passed by the learned ABR which are the subject matters of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel, Assam. I have also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as Shri Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

5. Shri Laskar, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are co-pattadars in respect of the land in question and therefore, the appeal filed in the learned ABR could not have been done without making the petitioners party respondents. He has submitted that in the adjudication process, the petitioners were not given opportunity to contest the outcome which has affected their rights. The learned counsel has also submitted that the subsequent order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the learned ABR is not sustainable as the learned Board was not in a position to entertain the review petition. He accordingly submits that the impugned orders be interfered with and the writ petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 and 4 has strenuously opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the projection made on behalf of the petitio