WP(C) 955/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr BJ Talukdar, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Also heard Mr A A hmed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5. The petitioners, who are brothers of respondent Nos.4 & 5 and the sons o f late Eikin Ali, by the present petition have challenged the order dated 11 Oct ober 2010 passed by a division Bench of Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.RA(Mor i) 138/2009, whereby and where-under the appeal preferred by the present respond ent Nos.4 & 5 under Section 147 read with Section 151 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 has been allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 22 Au gust 2008 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioners, Morigaon in Misc Case N o.2/2007, whereby and where-under Chitha mutation granted in favour of the pres ent respondent Nos.4 & 5 on 25 January 1972 was set aside. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that there is a n error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as Chitha mutation was not gran ted on 25 January 1972, but was granted on a subsequent date, though it is shown to have been granted on 25 January 1972. Learned counsel further submits that s ince the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are brothers and the sons of l ate Eikin Ali, all of them are entitled to equal share under the provisions of M ahammedan Law. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the Gift, alleg edly made by petitioners’ father in favour of respondent Nos.4 & 5, is not a val id Gift, being contrary to the provisions of Mahammedan Law. The issue raised in the present petition is relating to the title of the petitioners and the right to inherit the property left behind by their father. The petitioners have also sought to challenge the Gift, allegedly made by their father in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, on the ground that the same is con trary to the provisions of Mohammedan Law. Such a dispute can be raised and resolved in a properly instituted civil suit in the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. Even if the Chitha mutation granted in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 is restored, the petitio ners would not be debarred from filing the suit claiming the right, title and in terest and also for setting aside the Gift allegedly executed by the petitioners ’ father in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. In view of above, I do not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioners may approach the appropriate Civil Court having juris diction over the matter for declaration of right, title and interest and also fo r a declaration that the Gift, if any, executed by their father in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 is void, inoperative and illegal under the Mahammedan Law. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above observation. N o costs.