WP(C) 1400/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER The challenge made in this writ petition is the judgment and order of th e Revenue Board reversing the order of the Revenue Authorities allowing mutation in favour of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, his father Late Dimbeswar Hazarika had been in possession of the land in question. After the demise of his father, the peti tioner is in possession of the land. Such possession is stated to be from 1935 c ontinuously and without any interruption. It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired right, title and interest over the land by way of adverse posses sion and by operation of Section 27 of the Indian Mutation Act. The petitioner h as constructed residential house over the plot of land which is also bounded by brick walls. The petitioner has been paying dues like land revenue, municipal ta xes, electricity charge etc. to the authorities. 3. The private respondents herein are the heirs of Late Nabin Saikia, who d ied intested on 19.3.1999. Late Nabin Saikia, Late Hem Chandra Saikia and Sri Su rendra Nath Saikia were brothers and co-sharers of the plot of land. Their fathe r was Late Holiram Saikia. The husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondents No. 2 to 6 Late Nabin Saikia instituted Title Suit No. 4/1956 a s plaintiffs against the father of the writ petitioner Late Dimbeswar Hazarika f or declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner applied for mutation of the suit land in his name vide Mutation Case No. 51/1955-56. 4. The aforesaid title suit was contested by the father of the petitioner c laiming adverse possession over the land and also on the ground of the suit bein g barred by limitation. The title suit was dismissed on withdrawal towards which late Nabin Saikia filed application in 1963 with liberty to file a fresh suit, if so advised. The prayer was allowed by order dated 27.3.1963. It is the case o f the petitioner that the right, title and interest of the co-sharers Late Hem C handra Saikia and Late Surendra Nath Saikia got extinguished and merged with the ir brother Late Nabin Saikia. In other words the order dated 27.3.1963 binds the other two brothers as well. 5. After the withdrawal of the title suit, no fresh suit was filed. However , one Lakhi Prasad Lahkar claiming to have purchased part of the land in questio n from the pattadar Nabin Saikia filed Title Suit No. 51/1971 for permanent inju nction over 2 kathas of the land out of the total land. The suit was dismissed o n contest on 23.6.1977. Being aggrieved, Title Appeal No. 21/1977 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 16.6.1980. Thereafter, said Lakhi Prasad Lahkar fil ed Title Suit No. 6/1985 in respect of the aforesaid two kathas of land, which w as also dismissed on ground of being barred by res-judicata. 6. In the year 2002, to be precise on 14.8.2002, the petitioner filed an ap plication before the revenue authority for mutation of his name in respect of th e land in question. The application was registered and numbered as Mutation Case No. 176/2002-03 in the Court of the Circle Officer, Tezpur. The Circle Officer by his order dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure-E) granted the mutation in favour of the p etitioner. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred appeal before the Deputy Co mmissioner, Sonitpur being R.A. No. 2/2003. The appeal was also dismissed by ord er dated 27.1.2004 upholding the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissio ner, Sonitpur, Tezpur. Thereafter, the respondents preferred appeal before the A ssam Baord of Revenue being 33 RA(SR) 2005. The appeal has been allowed by the i mpugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2006, interalia providing that while the possession of the petitioner over the land in question will continue until the s ame is otherwise decided by the competent Civil Court, in the event of approach being made by either parties. Hence this writ petition. 7. While it is the case of the petitioner that in view of long possession o f the land, he has acquired the right, title and interest by way of adverse poss ession and that any suit by the respondents is barred by limitation, it is the c ase of the respondents that the revenue authority is not competent to make any d eclaration relating to adverse possession and/or relating to the principles invo lved in civil matters. 8. I have heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner alo ngwith Mr. D. Bora, learned Advocate. I have also heard Mr. J.K. Baishya alongwi th Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2 to 6. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate represented the State of Ass am. 9. Regulation 6 (C) of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations, 1886 deals wi th rights, which may be acquired over the land. No right of any description sha ll be deemed to have been, or shall be, acquired by any person over any land exc ept amongst others, rights acquired under Section 26 and 27 of the Indian Limita tion Act. Regulation 8 of the Regulations deals with status of landholder how acquired. Any person who has, before the commencement of the Regulations, held immediately under the Government for 10 years continuously any land not included either in a permanently settled estate and/or any revenue free estate who has d uring that period paid to the Government revenue due thereon, or held the same u nder an expressed exemption from revenue, except as provided by Section 15, any person who has whether before or after commencement of the Regulations, acquire any such land in a lease granted by behalf of the Government the terms of which is not less than 10 years, shall be deemed to have acquired the status of a lan dholder in respect of the land. 10. Upon a reference to the aforesaid provisions, it is the submission of th e learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has acquired the statu s of landholder. Further, upon a reference to schedule to the Limitation Act (E ntry 65), it is the case of the petitioner that since the claim of the responden ts is barred by limitation, the petitioner having had possession of the land adv erse to the respondents, there was nothing wrong in mutating his name in respect of the land. 11. Mr. Buragohain has also placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1957 Manipur 25 (Nar Bahadur Gurung and others v. Anil Krishna Bhattacharya and others) and the decision reported in AIR 1953 Assam 216 (Mt. Dukhuni Bibi and an other v. Khaliloor Rahman) . He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 (Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others). 12. In the case of Mt. Dukhuni Bibi (supra) the Court was concerned with t he duty of the Settlement Officer to go into the question of possession. It was held that the possession is one of the grounds in which mutation can be allowed subject to there being a prima facie title. It was observed that it is on the basis of the title and possession that the mutation can be allowed and not otherwise. It was also observed that the party who is not found to be in possession but claims only right to possession s hould be referred to the civil Court. This case is of no help to the case of the petitioner. The Assam Board of Revenue by its impugned judgment, while not dis turbing possession of the petitioner over the land in question has granted liber ty to both the parties to approach civil Court relating to their respective cla im over the land. 13. In the case of Nar Bahadur Gurung (supra), upon a reference to the provi sions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations, it was observed that the Regulati on does not give a person possession the right to get settlement. The settleme nt can be offered to the possessor only when authority is satisfied on certain p oints. That clearly means that the person in possession has merely a chance an d nothing more of obtaining settlement, but that is not something as right. Th is case is also of no help to the case of the petitioner. 14. In Bondar Singh (supra), the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with t he civil proceeding relating to adverse possession. This case has been relied u pon to emphasize on the point of adverse possession. It was the civil Court, whi ch decided the question relating to adverse possession. In the instant case, i t is the revenue Court which has decided the issue. Having regard the facts and circumstances involved, this case is also no help to the case of the petitioner . 15. There is no dispute that before the order permitting the mutation in the name of the petitioner, the names of the respondents were there in the revenue records. According to the respondents, the petitioner is in permissive possess ion of the land and he has not acquired the status of landholder. As to whether the petitioner has acquired the right, title and interest over the land by way o f adverse possession is a matter to be decided by the civil Court. The revenue Court cannot assume jurisdiction of civil Court. In Harimati Das (supra), the D ivision Bench of this Court, upon a reference to the relevant provisions of the Regulations, held that he Assistant Settlement Officer, Settlement Officer and t he Board of Revenue have the power to consider possession and the possession alo ne can be determined. When the issue with the title arises, the said authoriti es have no jurisdiction to decide such an issue and the parties have to be refer red to the civil Court. This is what exactly the Assam Board of Revenue has do ne by its impugned judgment and order. 16. The results of the aforementioned Title Suit cannot establish the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land in question. The Title Suit involving the respondents, was not decided on merit and secondly, the Title Su it involving another person i.e. Lakhi Prasad Lahkar cannot bind the respondents in any case. The said Title Suit cannot be decisive of right, title and intere st over the land in question and the same also cannot be decided by the revenue authorities. 17. At the first instance, the Circle Officer passed the order dated 8.7.200 3 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) allowing mutation in the name of the petiion er. The order was passed primarily upon a reference to the aforesaid Title Suit s and also on the basis of the possession of the petitioner over the land. The appellate authority also while upholding the order of mutation by his order date d 27.1.2004 (Annexure-’F’ to the writ petition) referred to the Title Suits and so also, the provisions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations and Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act. He acted as a civil Court to decide the issue of right, title and interest of the parties. 18. The Assam Board of Revenue by its impugned judgment and order dated 28.9 .2006 (Annexure-’G’ to the writ petition) has exclusively dealt with the matter and upon setting aside the order appealed against, rightly observed that the tit le by way of adverse possession can be conferred only by the competent civil Cou rt and not by revenue Court. Provision has been made in the impugned order that the possession of the petitioner over the land in question will continue unles s and until it is otherwise decided by a competent civil Court. Liberty has als o been granted to the petitioner to approach appropriate civil Court for declara tion of right, title and interest over the land in his favour by way of adverse possession. Liberty has also been granted to the respondents to approach civil Court for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession as per the provisions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations. 19. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the Re venue Board. It has rightly been held that for a decision and/or confirmation of right, title and interest by way of adverse possession, it is only the civil Co urt, which is competent to decide the issue and not the revenue Court. Till suc h time, a valid title is conferred on the petitioner, which he may obtain throug h a decree of the civil Court. It will be inappropriate to delete the name of th e respondents from the revenue records in respect of the land in question. The revenue Court is not within its competence and jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to adverse possession and the effect of the provisions of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, which provides that at the determination of the period of l imit as per the provisions of the Act to any person for instituting a suit for p ossession of any property, his right to such property shall get extinguished. 20. Various attending facts and circumstances will have to be addressed to b efore any declaration of right, title and interest over a plot of land by way of adverse possession and/or extinction of right to file a suit for right, title a nd interest. The power to decide such issue is vested on the civil Court and th e revenue Court cannot usurp the power and jurisdiction of civil Court in the m anner and method, in which the same has been done in the instant case. The effe ct of orders passed by the revenue authorities is virtually the declaration of right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land by way of adverse pos session, which in my considered view, is wholly without jurisdiction. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that no in terference is called for to the impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 pas sed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.33RA (Assam)2004. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.