WP(C) 3188/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B P KATAKEY Heard Mr MP Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr P Roy, learned sta te counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1,3 & 4. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 24th February 2011 passed by Assam Board of Revenue in Case no.34 RA(N)/2004 dismissi ng the appeal filed by the present petitioner. It appears from the said order dated 24th February 2011 that, earlier, t here had been a proceeding between the petitioner and the private respondents be fore the Board of Revenue. The said proceeding was decided on the basis of the s ettlement arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, of the land measuring 58- bigha 1-katha 10-lecha in different dags of Patta no.54(80), the petitioner had got in total 29-bigha 15-lecha of land while the private respondents also got 29 -bigha 15-lecha. Out of the said land which the petitioner and the private respo ndents had got by mutual agreement, dag no.454 was comprised of 39-bigha 4-katha 15-lecha. Of 39-bigha 4-katha 15-lecha of land, the present petitioner had got 20-bigha 1-katha 17-lecha, while the private respondents got 19-bigha 2-katha 18 -lecha. According to petitioner, an application was thereafter filed for mutatin g his name, in pursuance of such settlement, but the Circle Officer had granted mutation in respect of 15-bigha 4-katha 10-lecha in dag no.454, though he was en titled to in respect of 20-bigha 1-katha 17-lecha. It also appears from record t hat the mutation in respect of the remaining land in the said dag has not been g ranted, as a swathe of 8-bigha 4-katha 15-lecha of land had been acquired by the government of Assam, in the Irrigation Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner had surrendered the said acquired land in another dag in patta no.54(80) which is me ntioned in the compromise petition filed before the Assam Board of Revenue, the Circle Officer cannot refuse to mutate his name in respect of 20-bigha 1-katha 1 7-lecha, comprised in dag no.454. The contention, as raised by the petitioner, cannot be decided in a writ proceeding; nor can it be by the Assam Board Revenue. Since detailed evidence i s required to be adduced, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate Civil C ourt having jurisdiction over the matter for declaration of his right, title and interest, pursuant to the settlement, if any, arrived at. In view of above, the writ petition is not entertained and hence it is d ismissed. It will, however, not debar the petitioner from approaching the approp riate Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter praying for appropriate re lief. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.