This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Case No. 35 RA(C)/1984. By the said judgment, the appeal preferred by the respondents herein has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.2.1983 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar in AOR Case No. 1/81-82. As per the impugned appellate order, the respondents herein are entitled to get ownership right in respect of the land in question. 2. The case has a chaqured history. It all started in the year 1982, when the respondents' father, a share holder of the petitioner co­operative society namely Sanatan Samabai Krishi Samity made an application for confirmation of ownership right under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 in respect of the land in question. The area of the land is 25 Bighas, 7 Katha, 4 Chatak. The said application was registered and numbered as AOR Case No. 1/81-82. It will be appropriate to state at this stage that as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner society, a registered society of 1951 with Registration No. 3-8/51 dated 27.5.1951 purchased a plot of land measuring 2,238 acres comprising of 3 roads and 13 poles from Doadputce Tea Company by reprise-red deed dated 7.3.1952. The purpose of purchase of the land was to give land to the shareholders for economic upliftment of the members of the society. In the process, the father of the respondents was also provided with the aforesaid area of land. 3. After occupying the land of the co-operative society as a shareholder, it appears that the father of the respondents initially obtained khatian on temporary basis and thereafter final khatian was issued to him. 4. The application, registered and numbered as AOR Case No. 1781-82 was rejected by the District Revenue authority on the ground that the respondents were not agriculturist and that they also did not record their names in place of their deceased father as required under section 60 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered and numbered as Case No. 170RA(C)/1982. The appeal was disposed of by order dated 12.4.1983 remanding the matter back to the revenue authority for a fresh decision. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered and numbered as Case No. 170RA(C)/1982. The appeal was disposed of by order dated 12.4.1983 remanding the matter back to the revenue authority for a fresh decision. On remand, the matter was again taken up by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and thereafter by his order dated 28.12.1983 held that the father of the respondents was not entitled to claim ownership right in terms of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents again preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 35RA(C)/1984 before the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 25.3.1986 held that the father of the respondents being not a tenant within the meaning of section 3 (17) of the Act, no khatian could have been issued to him. Accordingly, direction was issued to make a proper investigation as to how he could obtain a khatian in respect of a land belong to a co­operative society. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 663/1986, which was disposed of by order dated 5.12.1990 by setting aside the order dated 25.3.1983 passed by the Board of Revenue. The matter was directed to be disposed of afresh after determining the issues raised in the appeal. On remand, the Board of Revenue having passed the impugned order dated 18.3.2005, the co-operative society invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court by filing the instant writ petition. 7. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner co-operative society submits that the entire matter proceeded with the misconception that the provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 are applicable to the present case. He submits that since the land belongs to the petitioner co-operative society, merely because one of each shareholder had occupied a portion of it pursuant to the measures adopted by the society for upliftment of economic condition of its shareholder, he could not have claimed the right as a tenancy under the landlord as per the provision of the said Act of 1971. He submits that the father of the respondents obtained temporary and the final khatian in collusion with the revenue authority, about which mention was made by the Revenue Board in its order dated 25.3.1986, by which, direction was issued to carry out investigation as to how the father of the respondents could obtain khatian. 8. Referring to the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by no stretch of imagination, a shareholder of a co­operative society can claim to be a tenant describing to be co-operative society as landlord. He submits that the fraud committed by the father of the respondents writ large on the face of it, which is required to be remedied by this court exercising its power of writ jurisdiction. 9. Opposing the aforesaid submission made by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner society, Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the society having provided the land to the father of the respondents and also having paid the rent, he became a tenant under the co-operative society and accordingly as per the provisions of the aforesaid 1971 Act, he had obtained khatian in his name. Mr. Sarmah, learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner society having not objected to issuance of temporary followed by final khatian in respect of the land, they are precluded from raising any objection in respect of the claim of the respondents for ownership right. Referring to the various orders passed in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, he submits that the Revenue Board did not commit anything wrong in passing the impugned order. 10.1 have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire materials on record. My findings and conclusions are as follows : 11. There is no dispute that the father of the respondents was a shareholder of the petitioner co-operative society. It was on that capacity, he was provided with the land in question by the co-operative society for the purpose of economic upliftment. It is true that certain amount of rent was collected by the co-operative society from the said shareholder. There is no dispute that the father of the respondents was a shareholder of the petitioner co-operative society. It was on that capacity, he was provided with the land in question by the co-operative society for the purpose of economic upliftment. It is true that certain amount of rent was collected by the co-operative society from the said shareholder. However, that by itself cannot be said to establish a relationship of landlord and tenant. It was within the jurisdiction of the co-operative society to take the particular decision to purchase the land and distribute the same to the shareholders for their economic upliftment. That kind of right did not give the right to the father of the respondents to claim khatian as he was not a tenant under the co­operative society, as per the provision of the Act of 1971. 12. The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971 was enacted to provide certain rights to the adhiars. The Act was enacted to provide for acquisition of raiyat's interest by under-raiyats, and for acquisition of landlord's interest by occupancy raiyats. Under section 2 of the Act, there are certain exceptions. The Act does not apply to the land owned by the Union or the State Government or by local authority which is used for any public purpose. The land reserved for the purpose of professional grazing reserves, village grazing reserves, recreation grounds, etc., or for any other public purposes is also exempted from the application of the Act. 13. Under section 3, 'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land or an undivided share thereof, held by a tenant and forming the subject of a separate tenancy. 'Landlord' means a person immediately under whom a tenant holds but does not include any Government. 'Rent' means whatever is lawfully payable or deliverable by the tenant to the landlord in cash or in kind of partly in cash and partly in kind whether as a fixed quantity of produce or as a share of the produce, on account of use or occupation of the and or on account of any right in the land held by the tenant. 'Tenant' means a person who cultivates or holds the land of another person, and is or but for a special contract (express or implied) would be liable to pay rent for that land to that other person, and includes a person who under system generally known as 'Adhi' (whether Guchiadhi or Gutiadhi), 'barga', 'chukti', 'bhag' or 'chukani' cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share or quantity of the produce of such land to that person. 14. Section 4 of the Act indicates classes of tenants. Sections 5 and 6 deal with acquisition of occupancy rights and incidence of such right. On a bare perusal of the provision of the aforesaid Act, it is crystal clear that the said Act is applicable in respect of agricultural land of which the tenant has a occupancy right under the landlord on fulfillment of certain conditions, the said tenant is entitled to obtain khatian with the eventual right to claiming ownership right. 15. In the instant case, admittedly the father of the respondents was a shareholder of the petitioner co-operative society. It is in that capacity, he came to occupy the particular portion of the land of the society for his own economic upliftment as a member of the society. However, he converted the said right to that of occupancy right under the Act of 1971 and obtained khatian. In is in this context, the petitioner society has contended that the father of the respondents obtained the khatian in collusion with the revenue authority, about which the society had no knowledge. It came to know about the said position only when the respondents made an application for ownership right. 16. Under section 23 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, if the bye-laws of a registered society so permit, any member of the society may, in accordance therewith nominate a person or persons in whose favour the society shall dispose of the shares or interests of such member on his death. Section 24 of the Act also provides for transfer of interest on death of a member. Section 27 of the Act puts restriction on transfer of possession of land held under a society. The Rules framed under the Act put restriction on transfer of shares or interests. 17. Mr. Section 24 of the Act also provides for transfer of interest on death of a member. Section 27 of the Act puts restriction on transfer of possession of land held under a society. The Rules framed under the Act put restriction on transfer of shares or interests. 17. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner society referring to the provisions of the bye-laws of the society submits that as per the provisions of the bye-laws, no shareholder can transfer his share of the land to any other person. As stated in the writ petition, as per the purpose for which the land was purchased from a Tea Company, the shareholders of the co-operative society were distributed with the land for their economic upliftment. However, taking advantage of the said position, the father of the respondents converted the land to be one under occupancy right and obtained khatian. Thereafter his legal heirs, i.e., the respondents made the application for ownership right. 18. If the plea of the respondents that they were occupancy tenant under the landlord, i.e., the petitioner co-operative society is to be accepted, then in that case all the shareholders occupying respective shares of land of the petitioner co-operative society would claim occupancy right with conversion of the land to be their own, which necessarily will resulted in deprivation of the society itself. This cannot serve the purpose of co-operative movement, which the petitioner society has been espousing. 19. It is an admitted fact that the father of the respondents obtained the land from the co-operative society as a member of the said society. He was governed by the provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder including the bye-laws of the society Thus, as a member of the said society, he could not have been treated as a tenant as defined under section 3(17) of the Act and therefore, question of acquisition of ownership right does not arise. Issuance of khatian in the name of the respondents father itself was irregular. 20. In the impugned judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in case No. 25RA(C)/1984. the Revenue Board has simply held that since the father of the respondents was holder of khatian, he was entitled to ownership right. Issuance of khatian in the name of the respondents father itself was irregular. 20. In the impugned judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in case No. 25RA(C)/1984. the Revenue Board has simply held that since the father of the respondents was holder of khatian, he was entitled to ownership right. However, while holding so, the Revenue Board did not even obliquely referred to the provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It escaped the notice of the Revenue Board that the father of the respondents was only a shareholder of the petitioner society and it was in that capacity h-e came to occupy the portion of the land belonging to the co-operative society. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to accept the writ petition by setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in case No. 25RA(C)/1984. 22. The writ petition is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. _____________