WP(C) 653/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner, in whose favour the initial Rayati Khatian No. 288 was issued by the Settlement Officer in respect of 16 Bighas 1 katha 9 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 590, 591, 597, 636 and 698 of KP patta No. 4 of village Saukuchi, mo uza-Beltola, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup, Assam, by the present petition, has challenged the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 83/2007-08 initiated by the res pondent No. 4 before the Settlement Officer at Guwahati, respondent No. 3 and ha s prayed for setting aside the said proceeding. 2. I have heard Mr. BB Narzary, learned senior counsel for the peti tioner and Mr. J Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No s. 1, 2 and 3. None appeared for the respondent No. 4 today though the names of the learned counsel appearing for him are reflected in the cause list. On the la st occasion i.e. on 27.6.2011 the case had to be adjourned till today because of non appearance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 despit e reflection of their names in the cause list. 3. Mr. Narzary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to the Rayati Khatian No. 288 issued by the Settlement Officer in respect of th e aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner as well as the subsequent order pas sed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup which was notified in the Assam Gaz ette on 16.3.2004 has submitted that the petitioner’s ownership right over the l and in question was declared by the Govt. of Assam under Section 21 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy) Act, 1971 (for short the ’1971 Act’), and a ccordingly the revenue records in respect of the said land was corrected by the Revenue Officer and thereafter the Jamabandi was issued. According to the learne d counsel, since the ownership right has been declared, which has been notified in the Assam Gazette, the subsequent proceeding by the respondent No. 4 for muta ting his name in place of the petitioner’s name is not maintainable before the S ettlement Officer unless the order declaring the ownership right in favour of th e petitioner is interfered with by a higher forum, which order, however, has not been challenged by anybody including the respondent No. 4 and as such the respo ndent No. 4 is not entitled to get his name mutated in respect of the aforesaid land. 4. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respon dent No. 2 has contended that it is correct that initially the Rayati Khatian wa s issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in the y ear 1983 and before that in the name of the petitioner’s father in the year 1959 and thereafter the ownership right of the petitioner in respect of the said lan d was declared by the Govt. of Assam under Section 21 of the 1971 Act and accord ingly the revenue records were corrected. 5. The respondent No. 4 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has co ntended that since the ownership right in favour of the petitioner under Section 21 of the 1971 Act was granted without issuing any notice to the persons intere sted, the said order is illegal and therefore the Settlement Officer is competen t to consider the application filed by the respondent No. 4 for mutating his nam e in place of the petitioner which proceeding is yet to be finalized. 6. The factum of issuance of Rayati Khatian in the name of petition er’s father in the year 1959 in respect of 22 bighas of land covered by the afor esaid Dag and Patta Nos. in the aforesaid village and also the issuance of anoth er Rayati Khatian in the year 1983 in favour of the petitioner in respect of 16 bighas 1 katha 9 lechas of land out of the 22 bighas of land under the provision of the 1971 Act are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petition er thereafter filed the application under Section 21 read with Section 23 of the 1971 Act for conferring the ownership right in respect of the said land claimin g to be the occupancy tenant of the said land. The order was thereafter passed b y the competent authority which was published in the Assam Gazette on 16.3.2004 conferring the ownership right of the petitioner in respect of said land with ef fect from the date of publication of such order passed under Section 21 of the 1 971 Act. The petitioner’s name was thereafter corrected in the revenue records o n 24.6.2004 and almost three years thereafter the application was filed by the r espondent No. 4 before the Settlement Officer, when the settlement was going on, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 83/2007-08, praying for mutating his nam e in place of the petitioner’s name, which proceeding is under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. In the present writ petition, as noticed above, the contention o f the respondent No. 4 is that such order under Section 21 of the 1971 Act was p assed without issuing notice to the persons interested. On the other hand it is the contention of the petitioner that the said order passed under Section 21 of the said Act has been notified in the Assam Gazette on 16.3.2004 and as such att ained its finality and cannot, therefore, be ignored unless of course it is inte rfered with by the higher forum. It is also the contention of the petitioner tha t no one including the respondent No. 4 has challenged the said order as gazette d on 16.3.2004. The fact remains that the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 83/2007-0 8 is presently pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Metro on being tr ansferred to the said authority after completion of the settlement operation. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of direct ing the Deputy Commissioner to decide the said proceeding after hearing the part ies concerned and keeping in mind the fact that the order under Section 21 of th e 1971 Act was passed and gazetted in the official Gazette on 16.3.2004 in favou r of the petitioner granting the ownership right in respect of the land in quest ion which has not been challenged by anyone including the respondent No. before any higher forum. 9. The said proceeding shall be decided as expeditiously as possibl e and in any case within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the said authority. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.