WP(C) 3510/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B P KATAKEY Heard Mr PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr J Handique, learned state counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Respondent no.5 has not entered appearance, despite service of notice. The petitioners, by this petition, has challenged the notice dated 5th A pril 2003 issued by the Circle Officer, Hajo revenue circle requiring their pres ence in the proceeding for measurement of boundary, on 28.4.2003. The said notic e was issued on the basis of an application filed by the respondent no.5 for mea surement of the land and demarcation of boundary. The ground on which the notice has been challenged is that on an earlier occasion also such an application was filed by the said respondent, on the basis of which the Circle Officer, on 28.1 0.2002, had issued notice to the petitioners and thereafter said application was rejected by the order dated 31st December 2002 and hence no fresh proceeding ca n be initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners, based on the aforesaid factual asse rtion, submitted that since the earlier application filed by the respondent no.5 had been rejected by the order dated 31st December 2002 and the same has never been put to challenge before the higher forum, no fresh proceeding for demarcati on of boundary can be initiated at the behest of the respondent no.5 as was done by the Circle Officer vide notice dated 5th April 2003. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, submitted that it is evident f rom the order dated 31st December 2002 passed by the Circle Officer that earlier prayer of respondent no.5 was rejected only on the ground of granting mutation in favour of the present petitioners and hence there had been no bar in entertai ning another application by Circle Officer. It has also been submitted that only the notice had been issued by the Circle Officer as the petitioners’ land is co ntiguous to the land of the respondent no.5. It appears that the respondent no.5 had filed an application for demarca tion of boundary, on the basis of which the Circle Officer had issued a notice d ated 28th October 2002. The said application was, however, rejected on 31.12.200 2 only on ground that mutation in respect of certain land was granted in favour of the writ petitioners. The respondent no.5, thereafter, filed another applicat ion for demarcation of the boundary, on basis of which the impugned notice dated 5th April 2003 had been issued, fixing 28th April 2003 and asking the petitione rs to be present. Under the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, for demarcati on of boundary, the notice to boundary-persons is required to be issued. Accordi ngly notice had been issued to the petitioners on basis of an application filed by the respondent no.5. The earlier application filed by the respondent no.5 was rejected only on the ground that mutation was granted in favour of the petition ers. Since the respondent no.5 has applied for demarcation of boundary of the la nd claiming that she is the owner, that proceeding has to be decided, and cannot be rejected on ground that the petitioners’ names have already been mutated in the revenue record. That being the position, I do not find any merit in this writ petition t o interfere with the notice dated 5th April 2003. The Circle Officer is directed to proceed with exercise of demarcation of boundary on the basis of the applica tion filed by the respondent no.5. The Circle Officer, however, cannot evict the petitioners from any land even if it is found that they are possessing the land of the respondent no.5, unless, of course, the appropriate decrees/orders are p assed by the appropriate authority/ court of law having jurisdiction over the ma tter. Since the earlier date fixed for demarcation of the boundary had expired, the Circle Officer shall issue fresh notice and do the needful in that regard. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.