Lahiri, J.- This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the Assam Board o' Revenue dated 6.4.76 in Revenue Appeal No. 20/1974. 2. The bone of contention is 8 B. 1 Lecha of land in patta No. 38(old)/361 and 362 (new) of Digboi town, which stood in the name of Respondent No. 4. Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah. Rangalal Khemani, father of the petitioner, obtained two registered deeds purporting to convey ''the land" in his favour from Bikhow Miah, father of Respondent No 4 and having obtained these deeds, he procured field muta­tion. Sub sequently, there was a resettlement and during the course thereof in 1935, the Settlement Officer entered the name of Rangalal in the settlement records. Rangalal was apparently entitled to obtain possession. He instituted a title suit against Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah for declaration of his title to the land and for recovery of possession or confirma­tion of possession. However, that suit was dismissed. Saraf­uddin and Amir Meah moved Revenue Officer for correction of the revenue records and for sub stitution of their names in place of Rangalal. The prayer was however turned down on the score that it was nothing but an application for correction of records prepared by the Settlement Officer and it was not within the competence of the Deputy Commi­ssioner to correct the records. Against that order, Respon­dent No. 4, Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah preferred an appeal to this High Court. The citation of the decision is R. A. 26 of 1948, Sarafuddin and another vs. Ranglal Khemani, disposed an 9.12.1948. It may be stated that at all relevant time this Court exercised the appellate jurisdic­tion under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, that power has since been transferred to the Board of Revenue. The matter was heard and the appeal was dismisaed by R.F. Lodge, C. J. on 9.12.48 by a speaking order. We are tempted to extract the relevant findings: "I agree with the courts below that mere substitu­tion of the names of the present appellants (meaning Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah) would not be bring­ing the records into conformity with the decision of the Civil Courts and that for that purpose, the result of a civil suit properly instituted by the present appell­ants must be awaited. 1 also agree that the applica­tion of the present appellants was an application to correct the entries made in the settlement records, and as such, an application has to be made within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute, and as this application has not been made within that period, this appeal ought to be dismissed." I, therefore, order that this appeal be dismised. * The bracketed protion is ours. (Emphasis added). 3. It appears clear from the conclusive finding of this Court as far back as on 9.12.48 that the title of Respondent No. 4 Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah was clouded wherefor this Court had to give a clear direction that correction of the records could be possible only after a favourable result in a civil proceeding properly instituted by the present Respondent Sarafuddin and another. The learned Chief Justice held in positive and affirmative manner that the appellant (i.e., the present Respondent No. 4 and one Amir Meah) were to file a civil suit to get a declaration of title in their favour and there after they would be entitled to ask for correction of the revenue records. Now, it appears, that Respondent No. 4 Saraf­uddin and one Amir Meah instead of obeying the direction of this Court in R.A. No. 26/48 (H.C.), found it convenient to wait for resettlement and then to make an application for can­cellation of the name of the petitioner and substitution of Responpent No. 4's name instead. The prayer was granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Revenue authorities including the learned Assam Board of Revenue. 4. The short point which falls for determination is whether the Revenue authorities can mutate the name of a person only on the basis of the finding that the applicant is in possession of the land. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the condition precedents for getting a mutation or registration are two-fold. First, title to the land and secon­dly possession of the land. It appears clear from the findings of the Revenue Courts upto the learned Board of Revenue that Respondent No. 4 has been in possession all throughout. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the condition precedents for getting a mutation or registration are two-fold. First, title to the land and secon­dly possession of the land. It appears clear from the findings of the Revenue Courts upto the learned Board of Revenue that Respondent No. 4 has been in possession all throughout. Howeyer, the question is whether he could obtain mutation in absence of title- Section 53 of the Assam land and Revenue Regulation is an enabling provision to grant mutation on ful­filment of two conditions by the applicant- He must satisfy that his title is accompanied by possession. There is a line of decisions of this Court that no registration or mutation is per­missible merely on the strength of possession. Title to the land is an essential pre-requisite. In the instant case, the Revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue found on fact that Respondent No. 4 had possession. Under these cir­cumstances, we cannot disturb the finding. However, the order upholding registration of the name of Respondent No. 4 is bad inasmuch as the Respondent No. 4 had no title. There is nothing on record to show that Respondent No. 4 had any title to the land. There is no finding of the Board of Revenue and/or the Revenue authorities below that there was valid title declared by a Civil Court in favour of Respondent No. 4. Dealing with that question, the learned Board of Revenue committed an error. It assumed that this Court while exercising appellate power in R.A. 26 of 1948 (HC) (supra) granted a licence to Respondent No. 4 to wait for the settle­ment operation and then to agitate his claim. To use the exact words of the Board of Revenue: "The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. But there was a direction to the present respondent for filing a Civil Suit for correc­tion of record. The respondent did not file any civil suit. But apparently he waited till the re-settlement operation". (Emphasis added) 5. It appears that the learned Board of Revenue con­sidered the direction of this Court to Respondent No. 4 that he should file a civil suit as otiose. However, the finding is final and binding. The respondent did not file any civil suit. But apparently he waited till the re-settlement operation". (Emphasis added) 5. It appears that the learned Board of Revenue con­sidered the direction of this Court to Respondent No. 4 that he should file a civil suit as otiose. However, the finding is final and binding. The order to Respondent No. 4 was to file a civil suit, to get his title declared, and thereafter to ask for correction of the records. No court or tribunal within the jurisdiction of this Court can unlaw the law made by this Court. It was ruled that the condition precedent to obtain mutation or correction of the record by Respondent No. 4 was to file a civil suit and get his title declared. No other means or method for obtaining "correction of the records" was pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue could not have by passed or circumvent the conclusive finding or direc­tion of this Court to permit Respondent No. 4 to obtain correction of the records. The positive direction of this Court was "to file a civil suit for correction of records". Without complying with the order of this Court neither the peti­tioner was competent to assert his claim for correction of record, nor could the Revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to correct the records, or to confirm the order of correction. This Court was fully aware about the settle­ment operations undertaken periodically but it did not observe that Respondent No. 4 would be entitled to correction of records during re-settlement operations, without removing the cloud of title which had been created by the Sale Deeds obtained by late Rangalal Khemani, father of the petitioner from late Bikhow Miah, father of Respondent No. 4. We find from records that the of petitioner's father had clouded the title of Respondent No. 4 where for this Court had to ask Respon­dent No. 4 and another Amir Meah to institute a civil suit to clear the cloud and to get a clear declaration of title in respect of the land. But Respondent No. 4 or the other man did not take any such action. As such, even today, in view of the decision of this Court in R.A. No. 26/48(HC), we cannot but hold that the title of Respondent No. 4 remains clouded. But Respondent No. 4 or the other man did not take any such action. As such, even today, in view of the decision of this Court in R.A. No. 26/48(HC), we cannot but hold that the title of Respondent No. 4 remains clouded. No civil action has been brought to get any declara­tion of title in favour of Respondent No. 4. Therefore, we hold that the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue committed error of jurisdiction vested in it by law in uphold­ing the order of registration in favour of Respondent No. 4, when admittedly, he had no clear title. This apart, the Revenue authorities as well as the Board of Revenue acted contrary to the direction of this Court in R.A. No. 26/48(HC). The judgment is binding on the parties, the Revenue autho­rities and the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue must be quashed. 6. For the foregoing discussions, we hold that the impugned orders of the registration in favour of Respondent No. 4 as well as the confirmation of the order must be quashed, which we hereby do. 7. The petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. However, there will be no order as to costs.