Ujjal Bhuyan, J.- By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of judgment and order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 1 SRA (DBR)/2007 as well as order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri. 2. By order dated 10.9.2007, land record of land measuring 12 bighas 1 katha 9 dhoor covered by dag No. 45 of khatian No. 1, Dhubri town, was changed by deleting the name of the petitioner as pattadar and inserting the name of N.F. Railway as the pattadar. By the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008, the revenue appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. 3. Case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid land was originally settled with his father late Gayanath Biswas by the erstwhile Gauripur estate. On the death of his father, petitioner inherited the aforesaid land. Settlement Officer did not mutate his name in place of his father but rather mutated the name of NE Railway. At this stage, petitioner instituted a civil suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 320/1998 seeking a declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. State of Assam as well as N.F. Railway were arrayed as defendants. 4. The suit was decreed on contest on 7.12.1999 declaring right, title and interest of the petitioner over the suit land and also confirming his possession. 5. No appeal was filed either by the State of Assam or by the N.F. Railway. As such, the aforesaid decree attained finality. 6. Petitioner instituted Title Execution Case No. 12/2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri. Executing Court passed order dated 20.6.2000 directing the District Collector to correct the land records as per the decree. 7. It appears that certain persons with vested interest had submitted application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri as well as before the Director of Land Records & Surveys, Assam not to make such correction. Director of Land Records and Surveys by order dated 25.11.2002 rejected all such petitions and directed the Settlement Officer, Dhubri to correct the land records as per decree of the Civil Court. Director of Land Records and Surveys by order dated 25.11.2002 rejected all such petitions and directed the Settlement Officer, Dhubri to correct the land records as per decree of the Civil Court. Thereafter, letter dated 13.12.2002 was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Department to the Settlement Officer, Dhubri requesting the latter not to take steps for correction of land records as per order of Director of Land Records and Surveys. The said letter was issued on a petition filed by respondent No. 6 dated 12.12.2002. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner filed WP(C) No. 139/2003. This Court by order dated 21.1.2003 admitted the writ petition and in the interim, suspended the operation of the communication dated 13.12.2002. 9. It appears that thereafter the revenue authorities corrected the land records by recording the name of the petitioner as patta holder of the suit land as per decree of the Civil Court. The said correction was made on 21.04.2003. 10. As the records were corrected, petitioner submitted before the Court that WP(C) No. 139/2003 had become infructuous. Accordingly, by order dated 14.05.2007, the writ petition was closed as infructuous and the stay order passed earlier was vacated. 11. Mis-construing the above order of this Court, Settlement Officer, Dhubri directed the Assistant Settlement Officer on 28.08.2007 that the name of N.F. Railway be recorded as pattadar of the suit land as was recorded prior to correction in the name of the petitioner. Following the above direction, Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri made the impugned correction on 10.9.2007 recording the name of N.F. Railway as the pattadar of the suit land. 12. Aggrieved by the above, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.(Regulation) before the Assam Board of Revenue. Assam Board of Revenue by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2008 dismissed the appeal. 13. Hence the writ petition. 14. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 15. Mr. Assam Board of Revenue by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2008 dismissed the appeal. 13. Hence the writ petition. 14. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 15. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the Civil Court had decreed the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the suit land and had confirmed his possession, there cannot be any manner of doubt about the title of the petitioner over the suit land. It, therefore, naturally follows that mutation of the suit land has to be done in favour of the petitioner. Government interference in the matter was totally unjustified and without jurisdiction. When this was challenged before this Court, the direction of the Government not to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of the suit land was stayed. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri had corrected the land records and entered the name of the petitioner as the recorded pattadar of the suit land. When the petitioner got the relief, he fairly submitted before this Court that the writ petition which he had filed had become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition was closed as infructuous and the stay order was vacated. On a complete and perhaps deliberate mis-reading of this order, the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer removed the name of the petitioner from the land records and inserted the name of N.F. Railway as the pattadar of the suit land. Appeal filed by the petitioner against such correction of land records was dismissed by the Assam Board of Revenue by holding that in view of the bar under Section 154 of the Regulation, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass order or to issue direction for correction of record-of-right. He submits that the order of the Assam Board of Revenue is patently untenable as ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court should not be readily inferred and bar of Section 154 of the Regulation would not come in the way of a party invoking jurisdiction of the Civil Court for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. He submits that the order of the Assam Board of Revenue is patently untenable as ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court should not be readily inferred and bar of Section 154 of the Regulation would not come in the way of a party invoking jurisdiction of the Civil Court for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. He also submits that the impugned correction of the land records were made by the Assistant Settlement Officer without issuing notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore, seeks quashing of the judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue as well as the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer as being wholly unsustainable in law. 16. Mr. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer submits that they had only carried out the orders of the superior authorities and they had no intention to violate the decree of the Civil Court. 17. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 while not disputing the facts pleaded by the petitioner, however submits that respondent No. 6 had instituted a title suit in the year 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhubri being Title Suit No. 249/2002 for a declaration that the decree obtained in Title Suit No. 320/1998 is a nullity. The proceeding is at the evidence stage. He, therefore, submits that the revenue authorities may be directed to await the verdict of the Court in Title Suit No. 249/2002. 18. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 19. As already noticed, facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Civil Court had decreed right, title and interest of the petitioner over the suit land and had also confirmed his possession. Following intervention of this Court, record of right was corrected and petitioner's name was mutated as the pattadar of the suit land. When the petitioner got the relief, the writ petition filed by him against the Government interference directing the Settlement Officer not to enter the name of the petitioner in the land record as the pattadar of the suit” land, became infructuous and was accordingly closed as infructuous. Consequently, continuance of the stay order which was granted earlier by this Court became unnecessary and therefore was vacated vide order dated 14.5.2007. Consequently, continuance of the stay order which was granted earlier by this Court became unnecessary and therefore was vacated vide order dated 14.5.2007. From a careful reading of this order, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that since the land records were corrected, further orders from this Court were not called for. No other view is possible or plausible. Therefore, to take the view that this Court had vacated the interim order and therefore the name of the petitioner as recorded pattadar of the suit land should be replaced by the N.F. Railway, can by no stretch of imagination be construed as a legal consequence following closure of the writ petition as infructuous. 20. The Assam Board of Revenue not only over looked this aspect of the matter but also misconstrued Section 154 of the Regulation. As per the aforesaid section, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is haired in respect of matters enumerated therein. 21. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daulatram Lakhani vs. The State of Assam and Others, reported in (1989) 1 GLR 131, considered the provision of Section 154 of the Regulation. It was held that Civil Court's jurisdiction would not be barred in the following cases :- “(1) When the order under Rule 18 is patently illegal or without jurisdiction; (2) Where the remedy provided by the Regulation to adjudge the objection raised is not sufficient; (3) Where complicated questions relating to title are involved; (4) Where the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title over the land from which he is sought to be evicted.” 22. This position has been consistently followed by subsequent decisions of this Court and it has been held that Section 154 of the Regulation does not bar the Civil Court from entertaining declaratory suit for title. 23. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a decree of Civil Court unless it is reversed by a higher Court cannot be disregarded. It is not open to the Assam Board of Revenue to say that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of title and, therefore, such a decree would be a nullity and not binding on the Assam Board of Revenue. Such an approach would not only be highly inappropriate but would have dangerous consequences. It is not open to the Assam Board of Revenue to say that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of title and, therefore, such a decree would be a nullity and not binding on the Assam Board of Revenue. Such an approach would not only be highly inappropriate but would have dangerous consequences. The proper course of action in such a case would be for the aggrieved party to move the higher Court for setting aside the decree of the Civil Court. It is certainly not open to a Revenue Board or any other authority or any person to say that order of the Civil Court is a nullity and therefore they are not bound by the order of the Civil Court. This position is quite well settled and therefore re-statement of the case laws on the subject is considered not necessary. 24. Contention of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 that the verdict of the Civil Court in the suit instituted by respondent No. 6 should be awaited, cannot be accepted, firstly on the ground that this petition is concerned only with the facts as are on record and is not concerned about any decision which may come in the future. In any case, the said suit is now pending for more than 11 years with no end in sight. It only reflects the complete lack of urgency on the part of respondent No. 6 as the present situation suits it. Therefore, declining relief to the petitioner on such a ground would be against all tenets of law and justice. 25. Having regard to the discussions made above, I am of the unhesitant view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the Assam Board of Revenue dated 8.7.2008 and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri dated 10.9.2007 are hereby set aside and quashed. 26. For the unnecessary litigation that was forced on the petitioner, cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) is awarded, which shall be paid in equal proportion by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri and by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhubri to the petitioner within 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.