KASHIRAM SALOI Vs. NAUBHUNDA KALITA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation directed against an order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup who has refused to enter the name of the appellant in the mutation register. The appellant's case is that he is the purchaser of the property in question and that after his purchase, he was in possession of it. Both the learned S.D.C. and the Deputy Commissioner, however, have found as a fact that the appellant has not in possession of the property. The revenue authorities are only concerned with the fact of possession in enquiries connected with the mutation of names. It was pointed out to Mr. Das during the course of a previous hearing that if he recognised the resps. as tenants under the previous owner, It would be possible to have his name also entered in the mutation register. Mr. Das took two adjournments to consult his client. He has now stated that he is not in a position to give anything in writing. It is impossible for me to set aside the finding of the two revenue officers below who have found that the appellant was not in possession, assuming that he had purchased the property.

(2.) THE appellant has therefore failed to prove either actual or constructive possession.