JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, in Case No. 51 RA(K)/2004 upholding the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in connection with Misc. Case No. 7/2001-2002. 2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are residents of Village Niz-Hajo and legal heirs of late Chittaranjan Das (a lineal descendent of late Lakhipati Das) who died, on 30.7.2005 after hearing and before the pronouncement of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. The petitioners and the respondents are the owners and possessors of their respective shares of land measuring 1 katha, 1.5 lechas in respect of the plot of land measuring 2 kathas, 3 lechas covered by Dag No. 836 of K.P. Patta No. 31 of Niz-Hajo village under Hajo Mouza in Kamrup district. The respondents filed an application for cancellation of the name of Sri Chittaranjan Das, husband of the petitioner No. 1, whose name appeared in the Khiraj Patta No. 31, Dag No. 836. The petitioner contested the petition made by the respondents for deletion of his name from the land record. While disposing of the petition vide order dated 12.11.2001 it has been recorded by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, that both the parties are in possession of the disputed land and it was ordered that the possession of Sri Sambhu Ram Das in respect of the suit land be maintained and Sri Chittaranjan Das cannot interfere with the land in question as Sri Sambhu Ram was in possession of the land on the date of the order i.e. 12.11.2001. The respondents did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, but they filed a petition under Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, for striking out the names of the petitioners from General Register. The learned Addl. The respondents did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, but they filed a petition under Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, for striking out the names of the petitioners from General Register. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner while disposing of the said application vide order dated 3.3.2004 observed that the Circle Officer erred in inserting the names of the opposite parties (present petitioners) in the Jamabandi without hearing the parties and ignoring the due process of law and held that the name of the opposite party Sri Chittaranjan Das (present petitioner) is liable to be cancelled from the said Jamabandi forthwith. Against the aforesaid order dated 3.3.2004 the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue and the same was disposed of by the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 upholding the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel submits that the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, is appealable under the existing provision in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and, as such, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner should not have entertained the petition filed by the respondents and passed the order dated 3.3.2004. He has referred to Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. It is also submitted by Mr. Sarma that the petitioners are still in possession of land in dispute and the right, title and interest of the parties involved in the land in question can be determined by the appropriate civil Court only and the learned Deputy Commissioner or for that matter the Board of Revenue has no power to decide the right, title and interest of the parties. 4. I have carefully gone through the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner(K) as well as the impugned judgment dated 23.5.2006. 5. The crux of the matter is to find out whether the parties concerned are in possession of land in dispute. From the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, it appears that before passing the aforesaid order local investigation was made and it came to the conclusion that both the parties are in possession of the disputed land. From the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, it appears that before passing the aforesaid order local investigation was made and it came to the conclusion that both the parties are in possession of the disputed land. While filing an application before the Deputy Commissioner the respondents made no statement to the effect that the petitioners are in not in possession of the land in dispute. The finding of the Circle Officer was not disputed by the respondents and therefore it has become indisputable that the petitioners have possession over the land in question since the days of their forefathers. I have also gone through Rule 116 of the Registration Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. For better appreciation the said rule is reproduced below :- 116 Power of Deputy Commissioner to order the name of a proprietor, of etc, be struck out of register -- Whenever it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any person whose name is recorded in the General Registers as proprietor, settlement-holder or manager of an estate is no longer in possession of any such interest in the estate, the Deputy Commissioner may order the name of such person to be struck out from the register: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not strike out the name of any recorded proprietor or land-holder, or manager on behalf of a proprietor or land-holder, without giving him due notice and hearing any objections he may prefer against his name being struck out. From the bare reading of the said rules it is found that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority/power to cancel the name of the parties from the revenue record if he/they are in possession of the land and, as such, any order striking off/deleting the names of the petitioners whose names appear in the Revenue Record cannot be cancelled or deleted inasmuch as they are still in possession of the land in question. 6. The order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, having not been challenged by the respondents by way of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the same has attained finality and the name of the petitioners cannot be deleted from the revenue record. 7. 6. The order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Hajo, having not been challenged by the respondents by way of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the same has attained finality and the name of the petitioners cannot be deleted from the revenue record. 7. In my considered view, the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the learned Assam Board of Revenue have exceeded their jurisdiction by entertaining the petition/appeal involving determination of right, title and interest, inasmuch as, such issues should be determined by the Civil Court only and it is the exclusive domain of the civil court. 8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue and the order doted 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, are not sustainable under the law and accordingly the same are set aside and quashed. Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.