Legal title and possession are essential for land mutation claims; the absence of these necessitates dismissal of petitions.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 and Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 8.

2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to record their names in accordance with the Court orders over 1 bigha of land covered by Dag No.285 of Patta No.91 of village Kacharigaon, Mouza-Duma, Revenue Circle-Gossaigaon in the district of Kokrajhar.

3. The case of the petitioners herein is that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha covered by Myadi Patta No.91 of Dag No.285 from one Shelka Sheikh by executing a registered Sale Deed No.9432, dated 15.10.1969. During the field mutation carried out on 11.04.2005, 10 lechas of the land was mutated in the name of one Nurul Amin Sheikh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.7 to 9. Being aggrieved by the field mutation, the petitioner No.1 filed a Misc. Case bearing Misc. Case No.2/07-08 before the Circle Officer, Gossaigaon Revenue Circle praying for cancellation of the field mutation in the name of the predecessor- in-interest of the respondent Nos.7 to 9. The Circle Officer, Gossaigaon Revenue Circle passed an order on 11.10.2007 in Misc. Case No.2/07-08 cancelling the mutation of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.7 to 9.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 preferred a Mutation Appeal being MA No.1/2008 against the order dated 11.10.2007 passed in Misc. Case No.2/07-08 by the Circle Officer of the Gossaigaon Revenue Circle.

5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Kokrajhar vide an order dated 06.04.2009 in MA No.1/2008 set aside the order dated 11.10.2007 passed in Misc. Case No.2/07-08 and upheld the field mutation order dated 11.04.2005.

6. The petitioners thereupon preferred an Appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which was registered and numbered as Appeal Case No.73RA(KR)/09. The learned Assam Board of Revenue, vide an order dated 21.10.2024, dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioners holding inter alia that the claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was in respect of Dag No.285 of Patta No.91 whereas the disputed Dag was Dag No.285 of Patta No.59. It was also mentioned that the dispute involved between the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as well as the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 was also pending in RSA No.13/2011. Paragraph Nos.10, 11 & 12 of the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

“10. The Circle Officer's order cancelling the mutation granted to Respondent No. 4 was based on an erroneous understanding of the appellant's claim. Since the appellant has no legal title to the land under Patta No. 59, Dag No. 285, the CO's decision was unsustainable and rightly reversed by the Deputy Commissioner.

11. The Board finds that the appellant, Mustt. Sarijan Bewa, has no valid claim over the disputed land under Patta No. 59, Dag No. 285, as she never purchased the land. Her reliance on a registered sale deed for another plot of land (Patta No. 91, Dag No. 285) is irrelevant to this case. On the other hand, Respondent No. 4's reliance on an unregistered sale deed does not grant him full legal title, but his long- standing possession and the absence of a