WP(C) 2740/1999 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, who are the appellants in Misc. Appeal No.1/97-98, by t he present petition has challenged the order dated 20.02.1999 passed by the Addl . Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, dismissing the said appeal by holding that th e same is not maintainable as no appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner against the order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, since the Deputy Commissioner includes the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. Talukdar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the re spondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the responden t Nos.3 to 5. Referring to the definition of the Revenue Officer and also the provis ions for appeal in Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (in short the 1971 Act), Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners has submitted t hat since the Addl. Deputy Commissioners were notified as the ’Revenue Officers’ under Section 3(14) of the Act, the appeal lies against the original order of t he Addl. Deputy Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, in view of the provisio ns contained in Section 67 of the said Act. It has also been submitted by Mr. Da s that though the Deputy Commissioner includes the Addl. Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, but under the provis ions of 1971 Act since the Addl. Deputy Commissioner is a ’Revenue Officer’ as d efined in Section 3(14) of the Act, appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner again st the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel, therefore, s ubmits that the order dismissing the appeal passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissio ner holding that an appeal is not maintainable against the decision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, is erroneous being contrary to the provisions of 1971 Act, which requires interference. The learned counsel further submits that since the appeal has not been decided on merit, the matter may be remitted to the appella te authority to decide the same on merit and in accordance with law. Mr. Talukdar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam has also submitted that since the Addl. Deputy Commissioners are notified as the Revenue Officers within the meaning of 1971 Act and Section 67 provides for an appeal to the De puty Commissioner against the decision given by the Revenue Officer, the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the original order passed by the Addl. De puty Commissioner is maintainable and hence the same ought to have been decided on merit. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 has submitted that since the Deputy Commissioner includes the Addl. Deputy Commissio ner, the petitioners have to prefer appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue aga inst the decision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and not before the Deputy Com missioner. In the case in hand, an application was filed by the present petitioners under Section 54A of the 1971 Act, which was rejected by the Addl. Deputy Commi ssioner vide order dated 06.10.1997, against which they preferred Misc. Appeal N o.1/97-98 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. The said appeal was endors ed to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner by the Deputy Commissioner for disposal. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner thereafter by the impugned order dated 20.02.1999 dis missed the appeal preferred by the present petitioners as not maintainable by ho lding that since under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the Deputy Commissioner includes the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, against the orig inal decision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner the appeal is not maintainable be fore the Deputy Commissioner. Section 3(14) of the 1971 Act defines the ’Revenue Officer’ as any offic er with the designation appointed for the purpose of the Act. It is evident from the impugned order dated 20.02.1999 that the Govt. of Assam vide notifications dated 09.09.1980 appointed all the Addl. Deputy Commissioners as ’Revenue Office rs’ for the purpose of 1971 Act. Section 67 provides for an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner or the Sett lement Officer against the decision of the ’Revenue Officer’ subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer. For better appreciation sub-secti on (1) of Section 67 of the 1971 Act is quoted below:- 67. Appeals - (1) In all proceedings under this Act before a Revenue Of ficer or a Revenue Court, except those in connection with preparation of record- of-rights under Chapter X and except where otherwise expressly provided for, app eals shall lie as follows:- (a) to the Assam Board of Revenue from original order of the Deputy Commissi oner or the Settlement Officer, within 60 days of the order appealed against; (b) to the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer, within 30 days of the order appealed against, from orders passed by any Revenue Officer subordinat e to him, even if the latter was exercising the delegated power of the Deputy Co mmissioner or the Settlement Officer when passing such order. It appears from Section 67(1)(b) of the Act that an appeal against the d ecision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner is maintainable before the Deputy Commi ssioner or the Settlement Officer, even if the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was exe rcising the delegated power of the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer . The said provision, therefore, makes it clear that any order passed by a ny Revenue Officer, even on delegation of the power by the Deputy Commissioner o r the Settlement Officer, is appealable before the Deputy Commissioner or the Se ttlement Officer. As noticed above, the Addl. Deputy Commissioners are appointed as the Revenue Officer by the Government vide notification dated 09.09.1980 wit hin the meaning of 1971 Act. That being the position, the appeal from the original order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner is maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner or the Settl ement Officer, as the case may be. Hence the order dated 20.02.1999 passed by th e Addl. Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Appeal No.1/97-98 is set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, is directed to take the said appeal on record and to d ecide the same in accordance with law and after hearing all the parties concerne d. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 07.06.2011 for taking necessary order from the said Court. Since the said ap peal was instituted in the year 1997, which is yet to be decided on merit, the D eputy Commissioner shall make all endeavour to decide the same within 45 days fr om the date of appearance of the parties as fixed by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated abov e. No costs.