Mrs Ph Ruth Joan Singha vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal No.76RA(C)/2025 whereby the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cachar, Hailakandi District, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.1/2025 was set aside.

Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 cannot withstand the scrutiny of law on two fundamental errors being committed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue. First, in terms with Regulation 45 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulation, 1963, an Appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 from an appellate order has to be heard by the Division Bench of the learned Assam Board of Revenue. However, in the instant case, the Appellate Order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer in Misc. Appeal No.1/2025 was heard only by the Chairman. Under such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the second ground is more astounding taking into account that the Appeal was heard by the learned Assam Board of Revenue and the order was passed setting aside the order impugned therein without even granting an opportunity to the Petitioner which is very much apparent from the impugned order itself.

I have also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 who submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that nothing has been decided on merits and merely the remand was made to the Settlement Officer for considering afresh without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Assam Board of Revenue. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the question of principles of natural justice violation would only apply when there is an apparent prejudice, and in the instant case, no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that it would be a case of useless formality for this Court to exercise the writ jurisdiction on the ground of the principles of natural justice.

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record.

Regulation 45 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963 stipulates the classes of cases to be heard by Benches. At Serial No.10 of the Table to Regulation 45, it is categorically mentioned that an Appeal under Section 147 of the Regulations of 1886 which lies from Original Order, the Appeal is to be decided by a Single Bench and when an Appeal is against an Appellate Order, it is the Division Bench of the learned Assam Board of Revenue who has to decide. Taking into account the mandate of Regulations 45, the Chairman of the learned Assam Board of Revenue could not have decided singly an Appeal which arose out of an Appellate Order passed by the Settlement Officer. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law as the said order was passed without jurisdiction.

Let this Court now take up the second ground urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. This Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as to whether any notice was issued upon the Petitioner prior to disposal of the said Appeal. Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 most fairly submitted that the Appeal was disposed of without issuance of notice to the Petitioner.

This Court has also perused the impugned judgment wherein the learned Assam Board of Revenue had drawn conclusions on the merits of the decision of the Settlement Officer. The conclusion so drawn on merits without granting an opportunity to the Petitioner who was a beneficiary of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer in Misc. Appeal No.1/2025 renders the impugned judgment violative of the principles of natural justice which is a facet of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-