NAHAR CHANDRA RAJKHOWA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 25 Feb. 1966 in Case No. 168 RA of 1976.

(2.) Facts.-The petitioner is the President of Pub Tetelisora Pragati Krishi Samabai Samitee, for short "the Samitee". In Tenancy Case No. 3/75-76, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order dated 30.9.75 directing the Samitee to deliver the possession of the land described in his order to respondent 4 Amburam Das, by holding that respondent-4 Amburam Das, was a tenant and he had been dispossessed by the Samitee without a decree of the Civil Court. The Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order under section 54-A of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (Assam Act XXIII of 1971), for short "the Act". Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the petitioner filed T.R.R. Appeal Case No. A 7/75-76 before the Settlement Officer Nagaon. The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal on 9 Aug. 1976. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue being Case No. 168/RA of 1976. The Board dismissed the appeal on 25 Feb. 1977 holding that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Hence his petition.

(3.) Mr. T.N. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under section 67 of the Act the Assam Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 67, an appeal shall lie to the Assam Board of Revenue from the original order of the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer, within 60 days of the order appealed against. Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 67, it is provided that an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer, within 30 days of the order appealed against, from orders passed by any revenue Officer subordinate to him. In view of the provisions under section 67(1)(a) of the Act, no second appeal shall lie to the Board. Therefore, the Board has rightly held that the appeal was not maintainable.