HARI PRASAD SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State Authorities are represented by Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Government Advocate. The two contesting litigants (respondents Nos.4 & 5) are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Roy.

(2.) The challenge here is to the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-A) in the Case No. 141 RA(K)/09, whereby the learned Board of Revenue declined to entertain the petitioner's challenge against the restoration of mutation ordered in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, by the Settlement Officer on 11.8.2009 (Annexure-B) in the Misc. Case No. 53/08-09. Earlier the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Guwahati in the Misc. Petition No.3982/2007 granted mutation on 11.7.2007 in favour of the present petitioner Hari Prasad Sarma, after cancellation of the existing mutation in the name of private respondents.

(3.) Assailing the legality of the impugned order of the Settlement Officer and the Revenue Board, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed land which he purchased on 19.12.2007 from the land owner Sahadeb Saha through his attorney Baleswar Saha and accordingly it is argued by Mr. Mahanta that mutation for the purchased land was rightly granted to the petitioner by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, on 11.7.2007. Here the surprising element is how the date of mutation in favour of the purchaser (Hari Prasad Sarma) is prior to the actual date of purchase i.e. 19.12.2007. But Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel submits that it could be a typographical error. However Mr. A.K. Roy, the learned Counsel submits that mutation was actually granted on 11.7.2007 and this order is challenged by the two private respondents before the Settlement Officer, whereafter the Settlement Officer cancelled the petitioner's wrongful mutation and restored the mutation of the private respondents on 11.8.2009.