WP(C) 9508/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25. 08.2003, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, in Case Nos. 110/ 111/ 112/ 113/ 114 RA (K) of 1993. By this impugned order, the appeals filed by the w rit petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been dismissed and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), has been directed to re-hear the appeals filed by one Sri Sat Ram Mikir, against the mutation orders of the SDC. It appears from t he impugned Judgment that the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed in RA Case No. 30/ 87-88, canceling the mutation of writ petitioner No. 5, Sri Sulendra Nath Bora, has been set aside. The learned counsel for the writ petitio ners admitted this factual position and according to him Sri Sulendra Nath Bora, should not have joined the other petitioners. Heard Sri S B Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petition ers, on behalf of Sri L R Dutta, learned engaged counsel for the petitioners. No ne appeared for the respondents. Sri Prasad submitted that the mutation orders of the writ petiti oners were illegally cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basi s of appeals filed by one Sri Sat Ram Mikir. According to the learned counsel, t he petitioners had purchased the land from one Sri Jogen Boro and not from Sri S at Ram Mikir and as such, the said person had no locus standi to challenge the m utation orders. The learned counsel also submitted that the names of petitioners were mutated after due notices to the vendors and Pattadars and also taking int o consideration the report of the Lat Mandal. Apparently and admittedly, the matter has been remanded back for reconsideration. In other words, the Board of Revenue has not rendered a defini te finding that the petitioners/ appellants are not entitled to mutation of thei r names on the basis of their purchase of the land. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners may raise all the issues before the Additional Deputy Commissio ner. In other words, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the issue of d elay in challenging the mutation orders as well as locus standi of the objector and all other grounds as may be advised. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.