WP(C) 1731/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is the daughter of respondent no.1 has filed the pre sent writ petition challenging the order dated 29.1.2010 passed by learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.151RA (SR)/07 allowing the appeal that was preferre d by respondent no.1 by setting aside the order dated 4.7.2007 passed by Addl. D eputy Commissioner, Sonitpur in Misc Case No.14/2008 and the order dated 7.1.200 2 passed by Circle Officer, Tezpur granting mutation in her favour. I have heard Mr P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr PK Ka lita, learned counsel for the respondent no.1; and Mr G. Soren, learned state co unsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 & 4. The case of the petitioner is that by a registered deed of sale dated 20 .7.2001 a plot of land measuring 3B with specific boundaries was transferred by respondent no.1 in her favour, wherein the dag & patta numbers were mentioned as 63 & 46, instead of 173/174 & 30, respectively. According to petitioner, in spi te of such wrong mentioning, as there was a specific boundary mentioned in the s ale deed, the mutation was granted by the circle officer vide order dated 7.4.20 02 on the basis of an application filed by petitioner in respect of the said lan d, which was also upheld by the ADC in Misc Case No.14/04 filed by the present r espondent no.1 challenging the order of mutation. It has also been submitted tha t the learned Board, while allowing the appeal did not take into consideration t he assertion of petitioner that there were some mistakes in the sale deed in giv ing the dag and patta numbers, though from the boundary given, the land could be identifiable sufficiently. Mr PK Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand , has contended that the learned Board has rightly allowed the appeal, as the mu tation was granted in respect of dag no.173/174 of PP no.30, and not in respect of dag no.63 of PP no.46, as the sale deed was in respect of dag no.63 of PP no. 46. The dispute raised in the present writ petition that the dag and patta n umbers in the sale deed were wrongly mentioned and the land actually transferred could be identifiable from the description of boundary given in the sale deed, cannot be resolved in a writ proceeding, for which the petitioner has to approac h the appropriate civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter in issue. That being the position, the present writ petition is disposed of with l iberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil Court having jurisdic tion over the matter in issue. However, keeping in view the entire facts and cir cumstances of the case, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on to day in all respects for a period of two months from today to enable the petition er to approach the appropriate civil Court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.