JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 12 in all the writ petitions. 2. The four writ petitions which are presently taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order assail the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022. 3. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 are the Khatiandars of various plots of land. The said petitioners have been issued Khatian No.80 over a land admeasuring 12 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.27 of Patta No.79 under village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The said petitioners have also been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.77 over a plot of land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.31 of Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. 4. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.683/2025 have been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.60 over a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.28 under KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under Mouza-Golakganj in the district of Dhubri, Assam. 5. The writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.678/2025 had purchased the land from the son of the Khatiandar admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 17 lechas under Khatian No.19 of Dag No.40 under Khiraj Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. It has been submitted by Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that all the lands are presently within the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. 6. The records reveal that the Private Respondents filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri on 17.04.2012 which was registered as Misc. It has been submitted by Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that all the lands are presently within the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. 6. The records reveal that the Private Respondents filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri on 17.04.2012 which was registered as Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 seeking deletion of the names of some of the pattadars and the rayoti Khatiandars recorded in the survey record and the correction of the survey records. A perusal of the application which is Annexure-A to the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 would show that the Private Respondents sought the deletion of the names of Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi whose names have been shown as pattadars and the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025. The said application further mentions the land wherein such deletion was sought, i.e. the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Dag No.2/163(old)/31(new) under village Dumardaha Part-II under Golokganj Revenue Circle which was covered by Rayoti Khatian No.77. 7. Pursuant to the said application, proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle by passing an order on 17.04.2012. On 28.05.2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer disposed of Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 striking out the names of the pattadars, namely, Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi as well as the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 in so far as the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 4 lechas covered by Khatian No.77, Dag No. 2/163(old)/31(new) of village Dumardaha Part-II and upheld the names of the Private Respondents. 8. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 challenged the said order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri and the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Golokganj, Dhubri in Misc. Case No.06/2012- 2013 before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which was registered and numbered as Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018. 9. The learned Assam Board of Revenue passed an ex-parte order dated 29.12.2018 thereby setting aside the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri as well as the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Golokganj, Dhubri in Misc. 9. The learned Assam Board of Revenue passed an ex-parte order dated 29.12.2018 thereby setting aside the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri as well as the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Golokganj, Dhubri in Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 and further directed the Circle Officer, Gauripur Revenue Circle, Dhubri to restore the Khatian No.77 as well as the names of the Petitioners in Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 in the relevant record of rights of the land in question forthwith causing necessary correction of the relevant records of the said land. 10. It may not be out of place to mention that the said order dated 29.12.2028 was passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in a proceedings filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 before the learned Assam Board of Revenue without impleading the Private Respondents herein. 11. The Private Respondents herein being aggrieved filed a Review Petition under Section 7 of the Assam Board of Revenue Act, 1962 before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which was registered and numbered as Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022 challenging the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018. 12. The learned Assam Board of Revenue not only set aside the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in the Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018, but also directed that the land records shall be restored to the original pattadars as on 18.12.2018 in respect to the land admeasuring 48 bighas 0 katha 13 lechas under Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40 & 302 in KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II, Mouza-Gauripur, Revenue Circle Gauripur in the district of Dhubri, Assam. It is under such circumstances that the present four writ petitions have been filed. 13. The grievance of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.683/2025 and WP(C) No.678/2025 are that they are the Khatian holders of Dag Nos.28 & 40 which was never the subject matter before the learned Assam Board of Revenue or even the Settlement Officer in Misc. Case No.06/2012-2013, and therefore, in exercise of the review jurisdiction, their rights could not be affected by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, that too without issuance of any notice. 14. The case of the writ Petitioners is in WP(C) No.344/2025 is that the proceedings in Misc. Case No.06/2012-2013, and therefore, in exercise of the review jurisdiction, their rights could not be affected by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, that too without issuance of any notice. 14. The case of the writ Petitioners is in WP(C) No.344/2025 is that the proceedings in Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 was in relation to Dag No.31 and thereupon proceedings was taken up before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which also in relation to Dag No.31. However, in the impugned review order, the learned Assam Board of Revenue included Dag No.27 which was never the case of the Private Respondents before the Settlement Officer or the Assistant Settlement Officer or the learned Assam Board of Revenue in the Revision Petition. 15. The case of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 is that once the review application was allowed, the order dated 29.12.2018 could have been recalled. But the revision petition thereupon ought to have been heard which was not done by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, and it is under such circumstances, the impugned order is required to be interfered with. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners further submitted that merely because of the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 is incorrect or not tenable cannot be a ground to reject the revision petition filed by the Petitioners without deciding as to whether the order dated 28.05.2012 was in accordance with law. 17. I have also heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Private Respondents who submitted that the names of the Petitioners in respect to all the Dags which were referred to in the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 were inserted without following the proper procedure, and as such, there was no mistake on the part of the learned Assam Board of Revenue in passing the order dated 07.01.2025. The learned Senior Counsel, however, with all fairness submitted that the proceedings in Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 was in respect to only Dag No.31 and not Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302 of KP Patta No.79. The learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that taking into account that the learned Assam Board of Revenue exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Regulation 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the learned Assam Board of Revenue was justified in passing the impugned order dated 07.01.2025. 18. The learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that taking into account that the learned Assam Board of Revenue exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Regulation 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the learned Assam Board of Revenue was justified in passing the impugned order dated 07.01.2025. 18. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. From the narration of the facts, it is apparent that the Petitioners in the four writ petitions claim right on the basis of certain Khatiyans being issued in their favour or through the Khatiyan holders. The proceedings which was initiated by the private respondents herein before the Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle was a proceedings for deletion of names of certain pattadars as well as the rayoti holders whose names appeared in the record of rights in respect to Dag No.31 of K.P. Patta No.79. The said application is absolutely clear, details of which this Court has already referred to herein above. 19. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that vide the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle, wherein the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 were struck off along with the names of two pattadars only in respect to Dag No.31 of K.P. Patta No.79. The said order nowhere mentioned about Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302 of K.P. Patta No. 79. The revision petition which was filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 after 6 years before the learned Assam Board of Revenue was filed in terms with Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 challenging the orders dated 17.04.2012 and 28.05.2012. It is surprising to take note of that the said revision application which was registered as Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 was filed on 28.12.2018 and on the very next day, the learned Assam Board of Revenue allowed the said application even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Private Respondents. 20. It surprises this Court at this stage to observe that when the supervisory jurisdiction of the learned Assam Board of Revenue was exercised under Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it was necessary for the learned Assam Board of Revenue to have at least issued the notice to the persons who would have been affected. 20. It surprises this Court at this stage to observe that when the supervisory jurisdiction of the learned Assam Board of Revenue was exercised under Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it was necessary for the learned Assam Board of Revenue to have at least issued the notice to the persons who would have been affected. Such order dated 29.12.2018 therefore on the face of it was arbitrary and violated the very principles of natural justice. 21. The Private Respondents herein thereupon filed a review petition before the learned Assam Board of Revenue which was registered and numbered as Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022. 22. This Court has perused the order dated 07.01.2025 and in the opinion of this Court, the recalling of the order passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue dated 29.12.2018 was duly justified as there was an error apparent on the face of the record. However, the review jurisdiction could not have been exercised by the learned Assam Board of Revenue to the extent of passing certain orders which were beyond the scope of the original proceedings. It is the opinion of this Court that the proceedings which was initiated being Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 was in respect of Dag No.31 of Patta No.79 in relation to a plot of land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 7 lechas whereas the learned Assam Board of Revenue in its review while exercising the review jurisdiction dealt with a plot of land admeasuring 48 bighas 0 katha 13 lechas which was not only covered by Dag No.31, but also by Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302 of KP Patta No.79. This was completely beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction. 23. Accordingly, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022 is required to be interfered with partly in so far as the directions were issued to restore to the original pattadars, i.e. the Private Respondents herein as on 18.12.2018 in respect to the land admeasuring 48 bighas 0 katha 13 lechas under Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40 & 302 in KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II, Mouza-Gauripur, Revenue Circle Gauripur in the district of Dhubri, Assam. 24. 24. The impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022 to the extent of recalling the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 however requires no interference. 25. This Court further observes and directs that upon reviewing the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018, there was a requirement on the part of the learned Assam Board of Revenue to decide afresh the Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 by giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 26. Accordingly this Court therefore directs the learned Assam Board of Revenue to decide Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 afresh by giving due opportunity to the parties to place their cases. 27. For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that the Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018 shall be restricted only to the land covered by Dag No.31 of KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II, Mouza-Gauripur, Revenue Circle Gauripur in the district of Dhubri, Assam and would have no relation in respect to Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302 of KP Patta No.79. 28. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.443/2025 as well as the Private Respondents in the instant proceedings are directed to appear before the learned Assam Board of Revenue on 15.05.2025 for further progress of the Revision Petition No.99RA(DBR)/2018. 29. Before parting with the record, this Court however makes it clear that the present order however shall not prejudice or preclude the Private Respondents to initiate steps before the concerned authorities in respect to the Dag Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 40 & 302 of KP Patta No.79, if so advised. 30. There shall be no order as to costs. 31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.