JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Government Advocate Mr. J. Handique appears for the respondents 2 & 3. Although the notice was served on the respondent No.4 Md. Warish Ulla, he is not appearing in this proceeding. 2. The respondent No.4 purchased 1 Katha 17½ Lechas land out of Patta No.688 of Nagar Mahal Mouza, Sivasagar Town and since the total Patta land measures 3 Bigha, 1 Katha, 18 Lechas, the purchaser Warish Ulla (respondent No.4) filed the Perfect Partition Case No.417/05/06. The S.D.O., Sivasagar ordered for issuance of notice to the co-pattadars on 30.11.2005 but the order sheet of the proceeding in the case doesn’t show that notices were ever served on the co-pattadars. 3. In the absence of any objection from the co-pattadars, the S.D.O(S), Sivasagar through the order dated 24.2.2006 (Page-16) allowed perfect partition of the purchased land of Patta No.688, by granting the application filed by the purchaser Warish Ullah. One of the aggrieved co-pattadars Md. Isfaqur Rohman (writ petitioner) then filed an Appeal under Section 117 read with Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Regulation”) to challenge the granting of partition to Warish Ullah (respondent No.4) and it was specifically pleaded that the partition order was passed without serving any notice on the appellant and other co-pattadars. 4. The learned Revenue Board examined the original records of the partition case and noted that the concerned notice page was missing and concluded it is not possible to ascertain whether the notice was issued or not and whether it was received by the co-pattadars. But despite this observation about non-receipt of notice, the learned Revenue Board refused to interfere with the partition order and thus the writ petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 16.5.2008 (Annexure-VI). 5. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the notice issued in the partition case to project that the co-pattadars in the land under Patta No.688 were never served any notice and in fact a few of them have expired long before the notice date. The Senior Counsel reads the affidavit sworn on 1.8.2008 (Annexure-VII) by a co-pattadars, Lakhi Baba Ali to project that the deponent as an illiterate person doesn’t know how to sign and he never received any notice which was allegedly acknowledged by putting signature. The Senior Counsel reads the affidavit sworn on 1.8.2008 (Annexure-VII) by a co-pattadars, Lakhi Baba Ali to project that the deponent as an illiterate person doesn’t know how to sign and he never received any notice which was allegedly acknowledged by putting signature. Similarly the deponent’s elder brother Yusuf Ali (co-pattadar) had expired 16 years earlier and his family members also did not receive notice of the partition case. Another co-pattadar Md. Bhajan Ali whose name was mentioned in the notice as co-pattadar, similarly was not served any notice. On the basis of these projections, Mr. Sahewalla argues that the learned Revenue Board committed an error by not interfering with the order passed by the S.D.O.(S), Sivasagar whereby partition was granted without serving notice on the co-pattadars. 6. The Chapter-VI of the Revenue Regulation deals with application for partition and under Section 99, it is mandatory to serve notice on all the recorded proprietors of the estate and to consider objection if any, of the co-pattadars. Only after objections are considered, application for perfect partition can be disposed of by the authority. 7. The specific case pleaded by the petitioner herein is that he and the co-pattadars were never served notice of the partition case and this specific plea was raised by him before the Revenue Board. But although a positive conclusion could not be reached on service of notice, the Revenue Board did not entertain the appeal against the order of perfect partition. 8. In view of above, I hold that the impugned judgment dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure-VI) in the Case No.8 RA(S)/2007 of the learned Revenue Board is legally unsustainable and the same is quashed. Thus partition of the purchased land from Patta No.688 of the Nagar Mahal Mouza granted to the respondent No.4 Warish Ullah by the S.D.O., Sivasagar is set aside. Consequently the authorities are directed to serve notice on the co-owners of the land in Patta No.688 and only after consideration of the objection (if any) of the co-pattadars, fresh order be issued in the perfect partition No. 417/05/06. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With the above order, this case is allowed without any order on cost.