Hansaria, J.:- Swami Abhayananda Tirtha claimed by the petitioner to be a great religious saint had come from pilgri­mage to the Holy temple of Kamakhya at the turn of this century. The solemn atmosphere and religious sanctury of the temple deeply impressed the saint. He ultimately decided to make Kamakhya as his permanent abode and established an ashram to use the same as a centre of meditation and religious studies and worship. It is a pity that the disciples of this Ashram are at loggerheads, and that too for claiming mutation for 10 B of odd land covered by Khatian No. 20 of dag No. 513 (old), 210 (new). There cannot be two opinions that private interest has to yield to the interest of the institution. 2. There is no dispute that during 1923-28 Settlement names of (1) Abhayananda Swami, (2) Jogendra Nath Panda and (3) Lakshi Kanta Mahanta were recorded as under' raiyats des­cribing all of them as disciples of Kailashnanda Swami. During temple-settlement operation of 1944-46 names of Jogendra and Lakshi continued, but in place of Abhayananda Swami, we find name of Upendra Nath Brahamachari who, as per the petitioner, had succeeded swami Abhayananda as per the last will and desire of Swamiji as the Guru of the Ashram. Be it mentioned that all these three names had found place as radiates on behalf of the Abhayanda Ashram. 3. The trouble maker is what happened during last re­settlement operation which found names of (1) Debendra and (2) Dhirendra, both sons of Jogendra and of (3) Golok son of Lakshi Kanta as raiyats along with Upendra Nath Brahma-chari of course, all of them were said to have held the land on behalf of the Abhayananda Ashram. This was some time in 1960. In 1968 the present petitioner who, according to him, had been elected as the sole in-charge and Guru of the Ashram following the death of Upendra Nath Brahmachari, filed a petition before the learned Settlement Officer for cancellation of names of the aforesaid three persons Deben, Dhiren and Golok. The learned Officer allowed the same by an order passed on 29.1.69 ordering at the same time that names of Upendra, Jogendra and Lakshi could continue in the Khatian register as raiyats on behalf of the Abhayananda Ashram. 4. The learned Officer allowed the same by an order passed on 29.1.69 ordering at the same time that names of Upendra, Jogendra and Lakshi could continue in the Khatian register as raiyats on behalf of the Abhayananda Ashram. 4. Feeling aggrieved at this order, Dhiren and heirs of Deben and Golok preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue who by impugned order has set aside the order of Settlement Officer. The learned Board has held that the Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the peti­tion filed on 28.5.68 either under section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (for short the Regulation) or under Rule 82 F of the Settlement Rules. It also accepted the case of respondents 6 to 14 (hereinafter, the respondents) that the names of Deben, Dhirendra and Golok has been recorded in the tenancy Khatian by virtue of "right of inheritence" from Jogendra and Lakshi. The learned Board has also set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector (S.D.C) on 10.6.69 in K.P. case No. 421 of 1968-69 by which the name of the petitioner was entered in the khatian by "right of inheritance" in place of all others, on behalf of the Abhayan-anda Ashram. 5. It has first been submitted by Shri Bhattacharjee for the petitioner that the learned Board had no jurisdiction to upset the order dated 10.6.69 passed by the S.D.C. inasmuch as the same was not the subject matter of appeal before the Board, who had been approached only against the order of Settlement Officer dated 24.1.69. Sri Sarma for the respondents urges that the learned Board had ample powers under section 151 of the Regulation in undoing "an incompetent and wrong order". We have been referred to an order dated 18.3.70 passed by the learned Board calling for the original record of this case. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that as this record was before the Board and as it was found that the order by the S.D.C. had been passed by suppressing the notice, the learned Board was perfectly justified and was within its juris­diction in setting aside the order. As to the width and ambit of the power under section 151 we have been referred to a Full Bench decision of this court in Satyarcnjan vs. Assam Board of Revenue, AIR 1971 Gauhati 83. As to the width and ambit of the power under section 151 we have been referred to a Full Bench decision of this court in Satyarcnjan vs. Assam Board of Revenue, AIR 1971 Gauhati 83. Our pointed attention is invited to what was stated by Sadananda Swamy, J. in para 11, the same being : "The powers of the Board under section 151 have been conferred in the widest terms. These powers can be exer­cised suo moto or on application filed before it. There is no period of limitation prescribed under the regulation for such an application." Similar views were expressed by Islam, J. (as he then was) in para 33. Shri Bhattacharjee has also relied on this decision to contend that the learned Board could not have exercised power under section 151 in view of the fact that an appeal against the order of S.D.C. was pending before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (A.D.C.). In para 10 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that power under section 151 can be exercised even in cases where there is a right of appeal and has not been availed, of. This would imply, submits Shri Bhattacharjee, that once the right of appeal has been availed of, revisional power under section 151 cannot be exercised. 6. We would think that the submission of Shri Bhattacharjee merits acceptance because no provision of the Regulation can be so read as to denude an authority clothed with some power by the same Regulation, more so when a party has already approached that authority. We do not think if invocation of revisional power has been visualised even during pendency of an appeal. To be fair to the Board let it be said that it was perhaps not brought to its notice that an appeal against the S.D.C.'s order was pending before the learned A.D.C.. We feel that if this fact would have been brought to the notice of the learned Members of the Board, they would have perhaps allowed the appellants before it, who were also the appellants before the learned A.D.C. to see to the fate of their appeal there. To allow invocation of revisional power in a pending appeal would bring clash of powers of authorities which has to be avoided. A party who has already chosen a forum to seek redress of his grievance cannot be allowed to sidetrack it. To allow invocation of revisional power in a pending appeal would bring clash of powers of authorities which has to be avoided. A party who has already chosen a forum to seek redress of his grievance cannot be allowed to sidetrack it. Of course, if the Board would have called for the records from the learned A.D.C. also, the matter would have been different. But that was not done. The only record summoned were of case No. K.P. 421/68-69. 7. In view of all these, we would hold that the learned Board did not act within its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the S.D.C. passed on 10.6.69. At one stage, we had thought to allow the parties to still pursue the appeal filed before the learned A.D.C., but we are refraining from doing so for reasons, which would become clear as we proceed. 8. Coming to the order of the Settlement Officer passed on 21.1.69, it may first be stated that the entire controversy has changed its color and context in view of the acquisition of the land in question some time in 1970 under the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 (Assam Act No. IX of 1961), because by virtue of section 4 (1) of this Act the land has vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. From Annexure IX of the petition, we find that Annual Patta as required by section 15 of this Act has already been issued. The name of pattadar has been shown thus : "For and on behalf of the Abhayananda Ashram, Shri Jatindra Nath Singha, son of Molek". According to Shri Sarma the namejaf Jatindra Natk has found place in this document because of the order of the S.D.C. passed on 10.6.69, and if that order goes, consequential amendment would automatically be made in Annexure IX. It may be stated that under section 15 of the aforesaid Act a rayed in actual occupation is alone entitled to get the settle­ment as stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Nath vs. Jogeswar, 1977 ALR 136. 9. We have been addressed at length by the counsel of the parties regarding the competing claim to the land in question. 9. We have been addressed at length by the counsel of the parties regarding the competing claim to the land in question. The history of record-of-rights already adverted to leaves no doubt that it was the Abhayananda Ashram which had been treated as the raiyat under the Temple. The 1923-28 settlement had described the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents as disciples of Kailasbnanda Swami. So they were there not so much as Jogendra or Lakshi in their personal capacities, but as disciples of Kailashnanda. From materials before us, we do not know much who Swami Kailashnanda was, be that as it may, the years to come clearly indicated that the land was meant for the Abhaya­nanda Ashram. This fact finds clear mention both in the temple settlement of 1944-46 as well as what happened in the last resettlement operation. 10. At this stage we may deal with the legal status of a body like an ashram. It may first be stated that an ashram belongs to those categories of institutions which are known or called Matha, as distinguished from Debutter. Though a Math and a Debutter both have their existence to benefactions or grants of property by pious benefactors, in one case (Debutter) the grantee is an idol for whose ministration or service the Dubutter is created, in the other (Math) the object of the bene­faction is the creation of an institution for the benefit of a fraternity of religious men at the head of which stands the superior or Mahant. (see Dr. Bijon Kumar Mukherjee's Tagore law Lectures on 'Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Endowment' 4th Edition p. 329). The Abhayananda Ashram has been described by us as a Math because it signifies in ordinary language an abode or residences of ascetics. In legal parlance it connotes a monastic institution presided over by a superior and establi­shed for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order who generally are disciples or co disciples of the superior (Supra, P. 321, which has been referred with approval in Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir, ATR 1980 SC 707). The history of the Ashram as narrated by the petitioner fits in with the above conception. The assertion of the respondent that there is a 'Dharmasala' on the land does not alter the character as a math is an abode or residence of ascetics, as already noted. 11. The history of the Ashram as narrated by the petitioner fits in with the above conception. The assertion of the respondent that there is a 'Dharmasala' on the land does not alter the character as a math is an abode or residence of ascetics, as already noted. 11. Let it next stated that in case of a Math, the endowed property vests in the Math as a juristic person and not in the mahant or superior either as a life tenant or otherwise (supra, P. 340 and Lakshmi Narayan vs. State, AIR 1978 Pat. 303). The property belonging to a math is in fact how ever attached to the office of the mahant, Thus : "a Math in an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in him self the dual office of being the religious or spiritual head of the particular cult or religious fraternity, and of the manager of the secular properties of the institution of the Math.", as stated in para 21 of the Krishna Singh (supra). So a math or an Ashram can be clothed with bundle of rights con­stituting ownership of a property. If that can be done, there is no bar in law in vesting in it lesser interest than that of an owner, say of a lessee or sub-lessee, a raiyat or under raiyaL But then it has to be managed by the mahant or guru. 12. The real objection of Shri Sarma lies in acceptance of the petitioner as the guru or in charge of the Ashram, as the petitioner is said to be a railway employee in Grade IV, According to Shri Bhattacharjee the material standing or status of the petitioner cannot be a bar in his attaining spiritual heights. He refers us to Anuexure III by which this petitioner was recognised in a meeting held on 7.1.62 as "the man in-charge of the Ashram" as he was the "main and favorite disciple". Shri Sharma would not take any cognizance of this. We do not propose to express any opinion on this aspect as it would be clear from what is being stated later, we are leaving this matter to be decided by an appropriate civil court if and when approached by the parties. 13. To clear the ground, we have to revert back to the order of the learned Board. We do not propose to express any opinion on this aspect as it would be clear from what is being stated later, we are leaving this matter to be decided by an appropriate civil court if and when approached by the parties. 13. To clear the ground, we have to revert back to the order of the learned Board. The respondents had claimed their right before the Board as she baits of the Kamakhya Temple, and by allowing mutation in their favour by ''right of inheritance." the learned Board virtually accepted the same. In doing so, the Board has undoubtedly committed a manifest error. The claim a s shebait of the temple was advanced for the first time before the Board and the same has, absolutely no foundation. There is not a scrap of paper on record so sustain this plea, even prima facie. The history of record of rights mentioned earlier makes it crystal clear that it was the Ashram, and Ashram alone, which was the raiyat or under-raiyat of the Temple. So allowing of mutation in favour of the respondents by admitting their independent right is a perversity which can be, and has to be, undone by this court even in its writ power. Public interest in an institution cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of private interest. Further, the controversy or dispute about claiming mutation has become more or less aca­demic or futile, as the land has since vested in the State under section 4(1) of the 1961 Act, and as the only right of getting settlement as raiyat in occupation has been rightly conferred on the Ashram vide Annexure IX. 14. So, the order of the Board has to do set aside which we hereby do. But this does not conclude the controversy, the respondents have objection to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in Annexure IX to act for and on behalf of the Ashram. This has happened according to Shri Sarma due to the exparte order of the S.D.C. passed on 10.6.69. Shri Bhattacharjee contends that this was founded on Annexure III. But law of succession to mahantship is not that simple. We may only indicate broadly what it is. This has happened according to Shri Sarma due to the exparte order of the S.D.C. passed on 10.6.69. Shri Bhattacharjee contends that this was founded on Annexure III. But law of succession to mahantship is not that simple. We may only indicate broadly what it is. Succession to mahantship is different from devolution of she bait ship inasmuch as the latter being property is inherited like any other species of heritable property, vide Profulla Choron vs. Satya Choron, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , whereas the former as per well settled law is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, except where the founder himself, who created the endowment had, laid down a rule of succession as stated in para 30 of the Krishna Singh (AIR 1980 SC707). Three important points are to be borne in mind while determining the question of succession to the office of a mahant as stated at p. 347 of Dr. Mukherjee's above work. These are (1) if the grantor has laid down any particular rule, that has to be given effect to; (2) in the absence -of the same, the usage of the particular institution has to be followed, and (3) the party who lays claim to the office of mahant on the strength of any usage must establish it affirma­tively. This apart, as the presiding element in a math or Ashram is an ascetic or religious teacher who together with his disciples forms a spiritual family, a nomination may be void as pointed out in Ram Parkash vs. Anand, AIR 1916 PC 256 if the person chosen suffers from bodily infirmity or disease, or leads a life which is immoral or is inconsistent with the religious vows of the brotherhood. Further, as per Dr. B. K. Mukherjee, conditions like celibacy are also necessary. All these aspects are to be borne in mind while deciding the question of succession to a guru of an ashram. There is nothing before us to show if these were considered while virtually recognising the petitioner as the guru of the Ashram. The points involved are however complicated and can be taken care of only by a Civil Court. It is because of this that we have not ultimately favoured relegation of the parties to the learned A.D.C. but instead feel that they should approach competent civil court if deemed fit by them. 15. The points involved are however complicated and can be taken care of only by a Civil Court. It is because of this that we have not ultimately favoured relegation of the parties to the learned A.D.C. but instead feel that they should approach competent civil court if deemed fit by them. 15. The result is that the petition is allowed and the impug­ned order is set aside. The patta of the land in question will remain, under the existing circumstances, in the name of the Ashram and the petitioner shall have the only right qua this property to pay the necessary rent/revenue to the Govern­ment till such time a civil court passes any order regarding succession to the office of the guru of the Ashram on being approached by the parties, where after that person who is declared as guru will manage the property on behalf of the Ashram. The name of such a person alone shall be recorded in the patta to act for and on behalf of the Ashram.