JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 7, who are the sons and daughter of late Idrish Ali Borbhuiya (who was issued the Khatian No.8 in respect of the land owned by the petitioner’s father Santa Prasad Teli). 2. The landowner is aggrieved by declaration of ownership rights and intermediary rights to the tenants (Khatiandars), under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Act”). 3. The Khatian No.8 was issued for land measuring 24 bighas 15 kathas 8 chataks covered by Dag Nos.188, 190 & 192 of Patta No.38 of Chatraidayal Mouza under Lakhipur Pargana of Cachar district, in favour of Idrish Ali Borbhuiya, the father of the private respondent Nos.3 to 7. The legal heirs claiming to be the tenants by inheritance, filed an application under Rule 9 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Rules”) to demand ownership and intermediary rights, under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act and that application was registered as the AOR Case No.1/95-96. 4. A report was then furnished on 20.11.1995 to the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Lakhipur by the local revenue officials, where it was confirmed that the applicants are the legal heirs of the Khatiandar Late Idrish Ali, in whose name the Khatian No.8 was issued earlier. It was also indicated that the applicants are in occupation of the land claimed by them, for more than 25 years. Notice in the case was issued to the landlord on 06.02.1996 by the Addl. D.C., Cachar, Silchar, but although notices were served, the landlord failed to appear. Accordingly the intermediary and ownership rights was granted to the applicants on 30.07.1996 and the Asstt. Settlement Officer was directed to assess the compensation payable under Section 24 of the Tenancy Act. The compensation was quantified and was deposited by the Khatiandars on 25.09.1996 and 04.11.1996. This was followed by the final order issued on 06.11.1996 (Annexure-2), whereby the Addl. D.C., Cachar, Silchar declared intermediary and ownership rights for the Khatiandars under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act. Consequential direction was issued to the ASO, Lakhipur to correct the revenue records. 5. The compensation was quantified and was deposited by the Khatiandars on 25.09.1996 and 04.11.1996. This was followed by the final order issued on 06.11.1996 (Annexure-2), whereby the Addl. D.C., Cachar, Silchar declared intermediary and ownership rights for the Khatiandars under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act. Consequential direction was issued to the ASO, Lakhipur to correct the revenue records. 5. The declaration in favour of the Khatiandars made on 06.11.1996 was challenged by the landlord before the Revenue Board and this case was registered as the Appeal No.RA 25(C)/1997. The learned Revenue Board disposed of the landlord’s appeal on 22.01.1999 remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The remanded matter was taken up by the Addl. D.C., Cachar, Silchar and notices were issued to both sides. However, the landlord failed to effectively participate in the proceeding by remaining absent on most dates and accordingly the case was considered on the basis of the projection made from the Khatiandars’ side. The Addl. D.C. referred to the earlier order passed in the AOR Case No.1/95-96 and the declaration of ownership rights made on 06.11.1996, it was further noticed that the Khatiandars had deposited the compensation amount determined under Section 24 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, ownership rights for the Khatiandars was affirmed under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act, by the Addl. D.C., Cachar on 11.04.2001 (Annexure-1A). 6. The above decision was challenged again by the landlord by presenting an appeal under Section 67 of the Tenancy Act and this was registered as the Case No.122 RA(C)/2001. The learned Assam Board of Revenue took note of the persistent default of the landlord to appear before the Addl. D.C. to present his objection. The issuance of the Khatian No.8 to the respondents was also considered by the Revenue Board and the consequential declaration of the ownership rights under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act, in favour of the Khatiandars. As the landlord failed to discharge their burden to contest the declaration given in the Khatiandars’ favour even on the 2nd occasion, after remand of the matter, the Revenue Board on 24.01.2011 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appeal and the landlord challenges the said decision, through this writ petition. 7. Mr. As the landlord failed to discharge their burden to contest the declaration given in the Khatiandars’ favour even on the 2nd occasion, after remand of the matter, the Revenue Board on 24.01.2011 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appeal and the landlord challenges the said decision, through this writ petition. 7. Mr. M. Singh, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the successor of the landlord Santa Prasad Teli and because of his old age, the landlord failed to effectively contest the Khatiandars’ claim for ownership rights. But Mr. Singh submits that the legality of the declaration made under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act should nevertheless be tested. 8. On the other hand, Mr. K. Uddin, the learned counsel for the Khatiandars submits that the declaration was made through due process under the Tenancy Act and there is no infringement of the procedural or any legal requirement. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the Addl. D.C., Cachar on 11.08.2011, the various steps taken by the authorities on the application of the Khatiandars are indicated. In the AOR Case No.1/95-96, notices were duly served on the landlord Santa Prasad Teli on 10.07.1996, but he failed to file any objection against the claim of the Khatiandars. Accordingly ownership rights was granted on 06.11.1996. But when the matter was remanded back to the Addl. D.C. by the Assam Board of Revenue, notices were issued to the landlord and the Khatiandars, but absence of the landlord was seen on multiple dates. Eventually last chance was given to the landlord on 27.03.2001 fixing 09.04.2001 as the next date, but even on the fixed date, the landlord was absent without any steps. Consequently the final order was passed on 11.04.2001, declaring the ownership rights in favour of the Khatiandars. 10. The Khatian for the cultivating tenant is the basic document for establishment of the ownership rights under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act. The authorities noted that the Khatian No.8 was issued to Idrish Ali Borbhuiya, the father of the respondent Nos.3 to 7. The application filed by the Khatiandars under Rule 9 of the Tenancy Rules, is found to be considered through due process as notices were issued and report of the revenue official was requisitioned. Only after consideration of all relevant aspects including the report sent on 20.11.1995 to the Asstt. The application filed by the Khatiandars under Rule 9 of the Tenancy Rules, is found to be considered through due process as notices were issued and report of the revenue official was requisitioned. Only after consideration of all relevant aspects including the report sent on 20.11.1995 to the Asstt. Settlement Officer, the ownership and intermediary rights, were declared in favour of the Khatiandars. 11. When the process through which the ownership and intermediary rights under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act are found to be conferred on the Khatiandars, no legal infirmity is noticed in the process. Moreover the landlord failed to contest the claim of the Khatiandars as was noticed at both stage of the proceedings. 12. In the above circumstances, having regard to the discussion made above, I do not merit in the challenge made by the landlord to the affirmation of the ownership rights in favour of the respondents/Khatiandars and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed without any order on cost. 13. The Registry should send down the LCR with a copy of this order.