JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the common Order dated 19.11.2015 passed in WP(C) 60/2011 and WP(C) 51/2011. 2. Subject matter of the case pertains to partition of family property devolving upon Late Gunindra Nath Dutta and subsequently to his legal heirs/representatives on one side and Munindra Nath Dutta i.e. respondent no. 3 on the other side, both being sons of Late Nakuleswar Dutta. Effort towards mutual partition of the family property having failed between the appellants/writ-petitioners and the respondent no. 3 herein after the demise of Gunindra Nath Dutta, two Partition Cases were instituted by the respondent no. 3. Both the cases were eventually allowed by Order dated 03.03.2003 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur whereby the respondent no. 3 was granted his share of the property to the extent of 11 Bighas 2 Kathas 17 Lechas out of the total ancestral property measuring 30 Bighas 2 Kathas 13 Lechas. On appeals filed by the appellants before the Board of Revenue, the Order dated 03.03.2003 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur for disposal afresh. Ground assigned is that the legal heirs of Late Gunindra Nath Dutta had not been impleaded as opposite parties in the partition cases before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. 3. On remand, notices were issued, which was received by one of the legal heirs i.e. Raj Kumar Dutta, who also filed objection on behalf of all the legal heirs. Objection was made to the effect that Munindra Nath Dutta was not in possession of the land in question. On 16.05.2007 the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order of partition in both cases in terms of the earlier Order dated 03.03.2003. Direction was also made for issuance of separate patta in respect of the partitioned family property. The said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 16.05.2007 was unsuccessfully assailed before the Assam Board of Revenue, eventually giving rise to institution of the aforesaid WP(C) 60/2011 and WP(C) 51/2011, which too were dismissed. Hence the present writ appeals. 4. Challenge to the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 16.05.2007 is primarily founded on ground that the appellants were denied opportunity of hearing by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, which ground did not find favour with the Board as well as with the learned Single Judge. 5. Hence the present writ appeals. 4. Challenge to the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 16.05.2007 is primarily founded on ground that the appellants were denied opportunity of hearing by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, which ground did not find favour with the Board as well as with the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. To answer to the plea of denial of opportunity of hearing, it is seen that consequent upon remand of the matter, notices were duly issued to the appellants/writ petitioners and, in fact, Raj Kumar Dutta had acknowledged receipt of notice on behalf of all the legal heirs. The participation of the appellants/writ petitioners in the proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, on remand, was only to the extent of submitting a written objection. On no subsequent dates the appellants/writ petitioners attended the hearing of the partition cases. The objection petition filed was not pressed at any point of time whatsoever. This fact alone establishes that the appellants/writ petitioners were full well aware of the proceedings. Facts disclose that they chose not to contest the claim for partition made by respondent no. 3 and/or to press the objection petition filed by them. Under the circumstances, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no option but to decide the partition cases on the available materials, which included report submitted by the Circle Officer concerned. The objection petition so filed by the appellants/writ petitioners also came to an end accordingly. In this respect, we find no good ground to interfere with the decision of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and that rendered by the Board of Revenue and by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is noticed that an additional ground of challenge is also made to the effect that since objection was raised in the proceeding before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the matter was required to be referred to a competent Civil Court for adjudication of the shares of the parties concerned. We are of the view that the said ground of challenge cannot be entertained in view of Regulation 101 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. We are of the view that the said ground of challenge cannot be entertained in view of Regulation 101 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The said provision makes it amply clear that with regard to any objection to a partition, other than an objection on question of title, the Deputy Commissioner is to dispose of it himself, unless for any reason he thinks fit to require that it be submitted to a Civil Court for adjudication. In the present case the objection petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners met its own fate. No circumstances were made out by the appellants requiring the Additional Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter for adjudication by a Civil Court. 7. In view of the discussions and finding above, we find no merit in both the appeals. Both stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.