Judgment Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. Preface These four appeals would relate to common question of law having great similarity on facts. Hence we intend to dispose of all the four appeals vide foregoing common judgment and order. FACTS The private respondent in all the four appeals were applicants before the revenue authority for sub-division of the land that they inherited from their respective predecessors. In all the four cases some of the co-sharers did not accord their consent in having such sub-division. Hence the authority rejected their claim on the ground that the dispute amongst the co-sharers should first be resolved by the Civil Court. The revenue authority was not competent enough to decide such issue. LAW ON THE SUBJECT Two provisions of the Revenue Regulation of A & N Administration would be relevant herein being Regulation 69 of The Andaman And Nicobar Islands Land Revenue And Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and Rule 61 of The Andaman And Nicobar Islands Land Revenue And Land Reforms Rules, 1968, the provisions are quoted below:- “69. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may either re-number plot numbers or sub-divide plot numbers into as many subdivisions as may be required in view of the acquisitions of rights in land or for any other reason. (2) The division of plot number into sub-divisions and the apportionment of assessment of the plot numbers amongst the sub-divisions shall be carried out in accordance with the rules made under this Regulation and such rules may provide limits its either of area or of land revenue, as the case may be, or both, in any local area below which no subdivision shall be recognised. Provided that the total amount of assessment of any plot number shall not be enhanced during the term of Settlement unless such assessment is liable to alteration under the provisions of this Regulation. 61. The assessment of a plot number shall be distributed over its sub divisions as agreed upon mutually by the subdivision holders or, where there is any dispute, in accordance with area and soil classification of the various subdivisions. 61. The assessment of a plot number shall be distributed over its sub divisions as agreed upon mutually by the subdivision holders or, where there is any dispute, in accordance with area and soil classification of the various subdivisions. Fractions of a paisa shall be ignored and the total assessment of the sub-divisions made to agree with that of plot number by adding one paisa to the assessment of as many sub-divisions as necessary.” WRIT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE PARTIES AND THE RESULT The learned Single Judge disposed of WP No.85 of 2014 by His Lordship’s judgment and order dated March 25, 2014. In other three cases the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions following the decision in WP No.85 of 2014. THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER IMPUGNED The judgment and order dated March 25, 2014 would depict, learned Judge considered the reasoned order of the revenue authority whereby the revenue authority rejected the application for sub-division and renumbering of the plots as all the co-sharers did not agree with the proposal for sub-division. The learned Judge considered Regulation 69 and Rule 61 and observed that the revenue authority was empowered to sub-divide the plots even in case of dispute amongst the co-sharers. The relevant extract of His Lordship’s judgment and order is quoted below:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties as also I have considered the facts and circumstances of this matter. In order to adjudicate the issue involved in this matter, the provisions of the Regulation 69 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation) and the Rule 61 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) are quoted below: “69. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may either re-number plot numbers or sub-divide plot numbers into as many subdivisions as may be required in view of the acquisitions of rights in land or for any other reasons. (2). The division of plot number into sub-division and the apportionment of assessment of the plot numbers amongst the sub-divisions shall be carried out in accordance with the rules made under this Regulation and such rules may provide limits its either of area or of land revenue, as the case may be, or both, in any local area below which no subdivision shall be recognized. Provided that the total amount of assessment of any plot number shall not be enhanced during the term of Settlement unless such assessment is liable to alteration under the provisions of this Regulation. 1968 Rules: 61. The assessment of a plot number shall be distributed over its sub divisions as agreed upon mutually by the subdivision holders or, where there is any dispute, in accordance with area and soil classification of the various subdivisions. Fractions of a paise shall be ignored and the total assessment of the sub-divisions made to agree with that of plot number by adding one paise to the assessment of as many sub-divisions as necessary.” After considering the provisions of the said Regulations I find that the respondent No.3 is empowered to sub-divide the plots in view of the acquisitions of rights in land or for any other reason in accordance with the Rules framed under the said Regulations. After considering the provisions of the said Rules I find that the assessment of plot number shall be distributed over its sub-division either as agreed upon mutually or in case there is any dispute, in accordance with the area and soil classification of the various sub-divisions. After considering the order dated September 16, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3, I find that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of existence of dispute in between the tenants. After considering the provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 69 of the said Regulations read with the provisions of Rule 61 of the said Rules, I find that the respondent No.3 was empowered to sub-divide the said plot of land in case of any dispute also. Therefore, the above order cannot be sustained in law. So far as the order dated December 17, 2013 passed by the respondent No.2 is concerned I find that the order passed by the respondent No.3 was affirmed on the following grounds: (i) There was no consent amongst the tenants for sub-division of the said plot of land; (ii) The petitioner failed to prove her exclusive right over any parcel of the said plot of and. So far as the first ground was concerned, according to the observations made hereinabove, the same could not be sustained in law because the respondent No.3 was at liberty to proceed even in case of disagreement in between the tenants. So far as the first ground was concerned, according to the observations made hereinabove, the same could not be sustained in law because the respondent No.3 was at liberty to proceed even in case of disagreement in between the tenants. So far as the second ground was concerned, I find that it was not based upon the observations of the respondent No.3. There was no observation of the respondent No.3 in the order dated September 16, 2011 with regard to non-production of materials in support of exclusive right of the petitioner over a parcel of the said plot of land. Therefore, it was an extraneous consideration.” APPEAL Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order impugned, the Revenue Administration preferred the instant appeal that we heard on the abovementioned date. CONTENTIONS Appearing for the respondents, Mr. Jayapal advanced his argument supporting the order of the learned Single Judge. According to Mr. Jayapal, the Regulation 69 would clearly empower the authority to sub-divide the plot in case of inheritance by more than one heir of the original tenant and re-number the same. Hence in the process of sub-division if any dispute would come being a statutory authority he was obliged to resolve the same to make effective compliance of the requirement of the Regulation. With regard to Rule 61, Mr. Jayapal would contend, after the property was sub-divided the revenue authority would assess the tax for each of the tenants and in case there was any dispute he would be obliged to resolve the same. Mr. Roshan George, learned advocate appearing for one of the respondents, adopted the argument of Mr. Jayapal. Appearing for the Revenue Authority, Mr. Mandal, learned Senior Advocate would rely upon the decision in the case of Shri Sultan Ahamed & anr. Versus The Lt. Governor & Ors. (W.P. No. 118 of 1999 dated August 17, 2000). The learned Single Judge in that case, while dealing with a similar issue, set aside the order of the Tehsildar granting mutation ignoring the dispute on the title. The learned Judge observed as follows:- “The question as to whether a deed of gift is valid or not or whether the co-owners are entitled to partition of the properties or not is a matter which, in absence of any statute ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court, can be decided only by the Civil Court and nobody else. The learned Judge observed as follows:- “The question as to whether a deed of gift is valid or not or whether the co-owners are entitled to partition of the properties or not is a matter which, in absence of any statute ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court, can be decided only by the Civil Court and nobody else. The Revenue Authorities for whatever purposes can neither determine the question of title nor direct the division of properties amongst the co-owners which has got nothing to do with the survey or settlement operation. A Revenue Authority cannot by any stretch of imagination decide a question of title. Mutation of the names of the owner or occupier of a land in the records maintained by the Revenue Authorities are made, inter alia, for the purpose of collection of revenue. An order of mutation as is well known although carries with it a presumption of correctness does neither creat nor extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) & Ors. reported in (1996)6 SCC 223 and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh reported in (1997)7 SCC 137 . In Shyamal Atta & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1999(1) C.L.J 250 , this court has held that a Thika Controller in terms of the provisions of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulations) Act, 1981 cannot decide a question as to whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Reference in this connection may be made to Indira Devi Rajak vs. Thika Controller & Ors. reported in 1999 W.B.L.R(Cal) 387. It appears that a gross illegality has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner in passing the said orders. Admittedly an application for demarcation and/or sub-division of the land was made in terms of an application filed by Sultan Ahmed and 9 others. The Report of the Tehsildar was that Sultan Ahmed has not agreed to the proposal made by other tenants. His Report was that sub-division be made as per the dates of birth of the legal heirs of Nazir Ahmed. Yet a gain another application was filed by Sultan Ahmed and five others for sub=division of land and objection was filed there against by four persons. The order sheets dated 10.5.99 to 31.5.99 show that partition be effected by drawal of lots and map was prepared. Yet a gain another application was filed by Sultan Ahmed and five others for sub=division of land and objection was filed there against by four persons. The order sheets dated 10.5.99 to 31.5.99 show that partition be effected by drawal of lots and map was prepared. Pursuant to such drawal of lots which, the result thereof, in turn, was sought to be given effect to by issuing notice of demarcation dated 17.9.99. Having regard to the provisions of the said Regulations as also the decisions as referred to hereinbefore, this court has no other option but to come to a conclusion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the impugned action of the Revenue Authorities is ultra vires the said Regulations. The right of the parties must be canvassed and adjudicated upon by a civil court only on a duly constituted Civil Suit. For the reasons aforementioned this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.5.1999 as also the order of mutation as contained in the affidavit-in-opposition including the notice dated 17.9.99 are set aside. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.” Relying on the paragraphs quoted (supra) Mr. Mandal would pray for setting aside of the judgment and orders of the learned Single Judge in all the four writ proceedings involved in the above appeals. While replying, Mr. George would distinguish the decision of the learned Single Judge in Sultan Ahamed (Supra) by contending, in the said case question of title was involved whereas in the case before us no one objected to the subdivision. They did not accord their consent. They also did not appear before the learned Single Judge despite notice being served upon them. LAW ON THE SUBJECT AS WE INTERPRET Before we consider the controversy involved in the lis, may we consider the provisions quoted (supra). The rule of interpretation would inter alia permit a court of law to interpret a particular provision of any statute keeping in mind the very purpose for which the statute was enacted. The Regulation, 1966 and Rules of 1968 were enacted empowering the revenue authority to have complete superintendence on the government lands and for collection of revenue therefrom. The rule of interpretation would inter alia permit a court of law to interpret a particular provision of any statute keeping in mind the very purpose for which the statute was enacted. The Regulation, 1966 and Rules of 1968 were enacted empowering the revenue authority to have complete superintendence on the government lands and for collection of revenue therefrom. The subject plots were government lands that were allotted to various tenants subject to payment of revenue. Such tenancy was heritable. On the demise of the original tenant the heirs of the tenant were entitled to approach the revenue authority for sub-division of plots. It is for mutual benefit, the authority was to sub-divide the land and collect revenue from each of the mutated tenants for the portion under their occupation. Regulation 69 would thus empower the revenue authority to sub-divide and mutate the plots in favour of the heirs of the original tenant. We fully agree with Mr. Jayapal when he would say, Rule 61 would fix the liability as to payment of revenue in respect of the sub-divided plots. Hence “the dispute” referred to in Rule 61 would relate to assessment of revenue. It would have no nexus with the dispute that the respective applicants might face to have the land sub-divided and mutated in their favour. That question could only be decided by a civil court so held by Sinha, J. in the case of Sultan Ahamed(Supra). In the said case one party claimed right by virtue of a deed of gift whereas others were questioning the validity of deed of gift and claimed partition on intestacy. The revenue authority was not entitled to determine such question. Coming back to the present case, we find, the original tenants in all the four cases died leaving their heirs who were eligible to be mutated subject to proving their right to claim so. In case all the natural heirs approached the authority the authority would be competent to do so in accordance with the Regulation 69. In all the four cases admittedly all the natural heirs did not approach the authority, hence, the authority was right in rejecting the application relegating the applicants to the civil court. It is true that the absentee party did not raise any effective objection that would not take away his or her right on the land in question. In all the four cases admittedly all the natural heirs did not approach the authority, hence, the authority was right in rejecting the application relegating the applicants to the civil court. It is true that the absentee party did not raise any effective objection that would not take away his or her right on the land in question. The revenue authority, in our view, was not competent to ignore the absentee. With deepest regard we have for His Lordship and with all humility may we say, the learned Judge perhaps missed out this aspect. Learned Judge perhaps did not appreciate the very purpose of Rule 61 that would have no nexus with the sub-division, as rightly argued by Mr. Jayapal. Mr. Jayapal would however, insist, we should support the orders with plausible reason. We are constrained to observe, the order could not have any support of law as it was based on a wrong premise and wrong understanding of the law. RESULT The appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and orders impugned are set aside. There would be, however, no order as to costs. I agree.