JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Both the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the legal heirs of late Jagyaram Borgohain, who was the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 7 bighas 4 kathas 15 lechas of dag Nos.9102, 9152 and 9155 of K.P. Patta No.55 situated at Block No.14 under Mouza No.3 Jorhat Town in the district of Assam. 3. Late Jagyaram Borgohain died leaving behind his legal heirs namely, Sri Bhupen Borgohain, Sri Jogen Borgohain, Sri Horen Borgohain, Sri Purendu Borgohain and Sri Munin Borgohain, and the aforesaid legal heirs have inherited the property left behind by Jagyaram Borgohain. 4. Among all the aforesaid legal heirs, Bhupen Borgohain being the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner died on 21.01.1994 leaving behind the present petitioner as his legal heirs. On the other hand, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Horen Borgohain died in the month of January, 2009 leaving behind respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as his legal heirs. Purendu Borgohain died prior to the death of Bhupen Borgohain leaving behind his wife, one daughter and one son. Jogen Borgohain died leaving behind his wife and two sons. 5. It is stated that during the lifetime of late Jagyaram Borgohain, all his legal heirs including the present petitioners were residing in the house constructed by him. On 08.09.2009, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 had made a demand that the petitioners vacate the possession of the Assam Type House which they were occupying on the basis of the order dated 05.02.2005 of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat in Partition Case No.37/95-96. It is the case of the petitioners that before passing the order dated 05.02.2005 in Partition Case No.37/95-96, no notice was issued to the petitioners nor they were given any opportunity of hearing. 6. Consequently, being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was numbered as 154 RA(J)/2009. By the order dated 14.06.2010, the said appeal was dismissed by the Assam Board of Revenue and being aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred. 7. 6. Consequently, being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was numbered as 154 RA(J)/2009. By the order dated 14.06.2010, the said appeal was dismissed by the Assam Board of Revenue and being aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred. 7. Although in the appeal, the case of the petitioners was that partition order was passed without hearing them, but the Assam Board of Revenue by its order dated 14.06.2010 had dismissed the appeal on the ground that two civil suits being Title Suit No.23/2009 and Title Suit No.50/2009 are pending before the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat. 8. On perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No.54/2009, it is seen that the said title suit has been preferred by the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 claiming right, title and interest over a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 2 katha 19 lechas of dag No.9812, 9813, 9814, 9815 of P.P No.55(Old) 248(New) situated at Block No.14, Jorhat Town Mouza, District Jorhat. 9. It is noticed that on the other hand, the order of partition, which has been assailed in the appeal before Assam Board of Revenue pertains to dag No.9102, 9152 and 9155 of K.P. Patta No.55 (Old). Hence, it prima facie appears that Title Suit No.54/2009 has no relevance to the order of the Deputy Commissioner in Partition Case No.37/95-96. 10. From paragraph-7 of the writ petition, it is noticed that another co-owner Munin Borgohain had preferred Title Suit No.23/2009 against the present petitioners for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of 1 katha 2 lecha of out 1 bigha 2 katha 19 lechas of dag No.9152/9821 of K.P Patta No. 50(old)/ 250(new) Block No.14 under Mouza No.3, Jorhat Town in the district of Jorhat. 11. It is noticed that the land involved in the said Title Suit No.23/2009 has also no relevance to the order of partition granted by the Deputy Commissioner, in respect of dag Nos.9102, 9152 and 9155 of K.P. Patta No.55 (Old). In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the learned Board that the decision in the aforesaid title suit would govern the right between the parties is found to be incorrect. 12. In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the learned Board that the decision in the aforesaid title suit would govern the right between the parties is found to be incorrect. 12. Be that is it may, the appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue was preferred by the petitioners on the sole ground that before passing the order dated 05.02.2005, 08.03.2005 and 04.06.2005 in Partition Case No.37/95-96, the present petitioners were neither issued any notice nor any hearing given to them. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the Assam Board of Revenue. 13. In this writ petition, the respondent authorities could not point out any material, which would indicate that the present petitioners were heard or notices were issued to them before the aforesaid orders were passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat in Partition Case No.37/95-96. As has already noticed that the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the successor-in-interest of late Jagyaram Borgohain and therefore, it cannot be disbelieved that the petitioners may also have some right over the land in question. 14. In such view of the matter, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat to adjudicate the Partition Case No.37/95-96 afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. 15. Accordingly, the orders dated 05.02.2005, 08.03.2005 and 04.06.2005 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Partition Case No.37/95-96 as well as the order dated 14.06.2010 of the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.154 RA(J)/09 are hereby set aside. 16. The matter stands remanded back to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner for a fresh adjudication as regard the partition case of the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. While adjudicating the partition case, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by giving them an opportunity of hearing and they be allowed to produce any relevant materials that they may desire to produce. Upon considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat shall pass a speaking order.