JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. M. Barman, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Ms. N. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. M.J. Baruah, the respondent No. 7 who has appeared in person. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9. 3. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 18.03.2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment in Revenue Appeal No. 70RA(DBR)/17 before the learned Assam Board of Revenue was rejected. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that pursuant to an order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Agomoni Circle, the names of various persons were recorded as tenants under the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. The said order included the name of one Sri Manbhola Ray in respect of land covered by Dag No. 1/1595 (Old)/25 (New) admeasuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha 7 Lechas and also the names of the petitioners against various other Dag Nos. forming part of Patta No. 622 of Village Kaldoba Part-I. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 filed an application on 03.12.2015 before the Settlement Officer stating inter alia that the insertion of the name of the said Sri Manbhola Ray in the Rayoti column against Dag No. 25 for an area of 4 Bighas 1 Katha 7 Lechas was illegal, taking into account that the said Sri Manbhola Ray was never a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. 5. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the said application as it has a bearing on the adjudication of the present dispute. The contents of the said application are reproduced herein under: “To, The Settlement Officer, Dhubri and Kokrajhar, Dhubri Sub :Prayer for correction of wrong entry in periodic Khiraj patta. REF : Khiraj Periodic Patta No. 622, Dag No. 25 KPS Patta No. 622 village: Kaldoba 1 st part Area 57.13 Are (4 Bigha 1 Katha 7 Lecha) under Mouza Agomoni. The contents of the said application are reproduced herein under: “To, The Settlement Officer, Dhubri and Kokrajhar, Dhubri Sub :Prayer for correction of wrong entry in periodic Khiraj patta. REF : Khiraj Periodic Patta No. 622, Dag No. 25 KPS Patta No. 622 village: Kaldoba 1 st part Area 57.13 Are (4 Bigha 1 Katha 7 Lecha) under Mouza Agomoni. With reference to subject as mentioned above I like to inform you that I am the absolute owner of the plot of land as referred above and after completion of resettlement operation, the aforementioned periodic patta has been issued in my name but after going through the same I with great surprise noticed that the name of one Manbhola Roy has been figured Rayat coloumn against Dag No.25 for an area of 4bigha 1katha 7 lechas in of land. That Sir the said Monbhula Roy was never been our tenant at any point of time and his name has illegally entered in the periodic patta. Although I have filed an objection before Assistant Settlement Officer, Agomoni on 06-01-2014 praying for correction of the aforesaid patta by deleting the name of said Monbhula Roy from the patta but till today nothing has been done. It is therefore prayed that your honour be kind enough to take necessary steps for correction of K.P. Patta No. 622 in respect of Dag No. 25 of village: Kaldoba 1 st part Area. 57.13 Are (4 Bigha 1 katha 7lecha) under Mouza Agomoni, Dist. Dhubri” 6. The Settlement Officer, Dhubri & Kokrajhar vide an order dated 16.09.2017 rejected the said application filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 holding inter alia that from the reports so submitted by the ASO, Agomoni Revenue Circle, it was found that the land in question covered by Dag No. 25 of Patta No. 622, Rayoti Khatian No. 420 of Village Kaldoba Part-I under Agomoni Revenue Circle was under the possession of the said Sri Manbhola Ray since long back. It was also mentioned that the ASO, Agomoni had passed the order dated 02.05.2008 in Misc. Case No. 109/2007 after obtaining due permission from the office of the Settlement Officer, for creation of tenant in the name of the said Sri Manbhola Ray, and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. It was also mentioned that the ASO, Agomoni had passed the order dated 02.05.2008 in Misc. Case No. 109/2007 after obtaining due permission from the office of the Settlement Officer, for creation of tenant in the name of the said Sri Manbhola Ray, and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 had neither filed any objection nor filed any Appeal against the said order. 7. Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 filed an Appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered and numbered as Appeal No. 70RA(DBR)/2017. In the said Appeal, the petitioners filed an application seeking impleadment on the ground that if any order were passed setting aside the order dated 16.09.2017, the petitioners would be affected. The said application seeking impleadment was rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 8. This Court has duly taken note of the contents of the impugned order whereby the learned Assam Board of Revenue rejected the application, taking into account that the Dag Nos. in the cases of the petitioners were different from the Dag No. relating to Sri Manbhola Ray, which was the subject matter of the Appeal filed before the learned Assam Board of Revenue. 9. This Court has not only taken into account the impugned order as well as the application filed by the petitioners before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, but has also taken note of the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which has been quoted hereinabove. In the said application which led to the filing of the Appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, there is no mention that the petitioners were not tenants under the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. The said application was directed only against one Sri Manbhola Ray and not against the petitioners. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.