JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mr. D Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. advocate. 2. The petitioners herein, are the successor-in-interests of Lt. Narayan Chandra Agarwalla and Late Mrityu @ Mutung Ram Agarwalla. The jamabandi of 1923-28 shows that one Ganga Nath Goswami was the owner of a plot of land measuring 19 bigha, 3 katha and 17 lechas covered by Dag No. 440 K.P Patta No. 28 as it stood then. Thereafter by order dated 06-01-1931, the said land was mutated in the name of M/s Sonapur Co-operative Limited by way of right of purchase and accordingly, by order dated 16-06-1934, the land was mutated in the names of Radha Kishan Agarwalla and Kanailal Agarwalla. 3. On 14-05-1944, on the death of Kanailal Agarwalla the said land was mutated in the chitha by way of right of inheritance in favour of Andi Agarwalla and Mrityu Ram Agarwalla and after resettlement, the Dag was renumbered as 125 and 78 K.P Patta No. 78. On 03-10-1967 on the death of Radha Kishan Agarwalla, the name was muted in the chitha in the name of Prabhu Dayal Agarwalla by right of inheritance. 4. Accordingly it can be seen that the descendants of Radha Kishan Agarwalla had right to the share to the extent of 50% land measuring 19 bigha, 3 katha and 17 lechas, while the descendants of Kanailal Agarwalla has the right over the other 50%. It is an admitted position of the parties that by registered sale deed No. 4026/78 dated 03-05-1978, Prabhu Dayal Agarwalla sold the entire plot of land measuring 19 bigha, 3 kathas and 17 lechas of land in favour of one Narayan Ch. Das, without there being any consent of the other co-owners. It is also stated that no mutation was granted in favour of the said Narayan Ch. Das after the said purchase. Thereafter, by registered sale deed No. 5243/97 dated 30-09-1997, Nayaran Ch. Das sold the entire 19 bighas, 3 katha and 17 lechas of land to the Assam Livestock and Poultry Co-operation Ltd., Khanapara. It is also stated that no mutation order was passed in favour of the said purchaser also. 5. Das after the said purchase. Thereafter, by registered sale deed No. 5243/97 dated 30-09-1997, Nayaran Ch. Das sold the entire 19 bighas, 3 katha and 17 lechas of land to the Assam Livestock and Poultry Co-operation Ltd., Khanapara. It is also stated that no mutation order was passed in favour of the said purchaser also. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petitioner, being the successors-in-interests of Late Mrityu @ Mutung Ram Agarwalla had filed a misc case No. 1/05/06 before the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle and prayed for a direction to demarcate the portion of their land and also to correct the land records by entering their names after making necessary corrections of Narayan Ch. Das and Mrityu Ram Agarwal in respect of their share of the land. 6. Accordingly, order dated 22-09-2005 was passed by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle. In the said misc case No. 1/05/06 it was ordered that the name of Prabhu Dayal Agarwalla stood corrected in respect of land measuring 13 bighas, 0 Katha and 13 lechas being ?rd share out of total area of 19 bighas 3 kathas and 17 lechas of Dag No. 125 covered by K.P Patta No. 78 of village Tepesia under Panbari Mouza. The said correction was made in favour of the Narayan Ch. Das and thereafter again corrected and mutated in favour of the Managing Director of Assam Livestock Corporation and Poultry Limited in respect of land measuring 13 bighas, 0 katha and 13 lechas. In respect of the area of land measuring 6 bigha 2 katha and 16 lechas of land, it was ordered that the land record be corrected in favour of Narayan Chandra Agarwalla, Dipak Agarwalla and Aghoni Bala Agarwalla on being the sons and daughters of late Mutung Ram Agarwalla. 7. By the said order it was also provided that Narayan Ch. Das and the Managing Director of Assam Livestock Corporation Ltd may take legal steps against Prabhu Dayal Agarwalla for the illegal sale of land of other sharers. 8. But it is stated that the said order of the Circle Officer dated 22-09-2005 has attained its finality and there has been no appeal preferred by any of the parties against said order. 9. 8. But it is stated that the said order of the Circle Officer dated 22-09-2005 has attained its finality and there has been no appeal preferred by any of the parties against said order. 9. Thereafter, the aforesaid Narayan Chandra Agarwalla, Dipak Agarwalla and Aghoni Bala Agarwalla being the sons and daughters of late Mutung Ram Agarwalla had preferred a partition case being PP Case No. 116/05-06 before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner for grant of perfect partition in respect of 6 bigha, 2 katha and 17 lechas of land of Dag no. 125, K.P Patta No. 78. 10. In the said PP Case No. 116/05-06, order dated 22-08-2006 was passed. By the said order of 22-08-2006, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) was pleased to allow the perfect partition in respect of 6 bigha, 2 katha, 17 lechas of land of Dag No. 125 K.P Patta No. 78 of village Tepesia, under Panbari Mouza in favour of Narayan Chandra Agarwalla, Dipak Agarwalla and Aghoni Bala Agarwalla on being the sons and daughters of late Mutung Ram Agarwalla. 11. In the said order of 22-08-2006, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had recorded that one objection petition was filed on behalf of the Managing Director of Assam Livestock Corporation and Poultry Limited wherein a plea was raised that the land in question was purchased by them. But the said objection was rejected by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner by providing that in the earlier order dated 22-09-2005 of the Circle Officer in Misc case No. 1/05/06, mutation was granted in favour of the applicants Narayan Chandra Agarwalla, Dipak Agarwalla and Aghoni Bala Agarwalla and no appeal against the same had been preferred by the objecting party. Accordingly, objection raised by the Managing Director of Assam Livestock Corporation and Poultry Limited was rejected. 12. Against the order dated 22-08-2006 in of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner PP Case No. 116/05-06, an appeal was preferred by the Managing Director of Assam Livestock Corporation and Poultry Limited before the Assam Board of Revenue and the said appeal was numbered as 110RA(K0/2006. The appellant's case was disposed of by judgment and order dated 05-04-2010 of the Assam Board of Revenue wherein it was provided that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated 22-08-2006, without considering the provisions of Regulation 100 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (in short "1886 Regulation"). The appellant's case was disposed of by judgment and order dated 05-04-2010 of the Assam Board of Revenue wherein it was provided that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated 22-08-2006, without considering the provisions of Regulation 100 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (in short "1886 Regulation"). Accordingly, the Assam Board of Revenue ordered that the execution and further steps pursuant to the partition order be kept in abeyance till final decision/disposal by a competent Civil Court available in this matter. 13. The said judgment and order dated 05-04-2010 has been assailed in this writ petition by the successors-in-interest of Mutung Agarwalla who are respectively Narayan Chandra Agarwal, Dipak Agarwal and Aghoni Bala Agarwalla. 14. Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner without urging upon the other grounds raised in the writ petition has made a submission that the petitioners would be satisfied if in the earlier process adopted by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in PP Case No. 116/05-06 and the Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No. 110/RA (K)/06, the procedure required to be followed under Regulation 100 of 1886 regulation is duly followed. 15. Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel also refers to paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 24-02-2016 of the Managing Director of the Assam Livestock Corporation and Poultry Limited wherein, it has been stated that developmental activities are confined within 13 bighas 18 lechas of land without anyway affecting the other 6 bighas 2 kathas 17 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 125 of K.P Patta No. 78. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Deka learned counsel for the Corporation makes statement that the same land has been left vacant in pursuant to an interim-order of this Court passed earlier wherein an order of status-quo was directed to be maintained. 17. Be that as it may, the question for adjudication before this Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances is as to whether the required procedure under Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation has been followed or not. 18. 17. Be that as it may, the question for adjudication before this Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances is as to whether the required procedure under Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation has been followed or not. 18. For the purpose of convenience, Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation is quoted here under: "Objection on the question of title - (1) If an objection, preferred as required under Section 99 raises any question of title which has not been already determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner shall stay his proceedings for such time as, in his opinion, is sufficient to admit of a suit being instituted in the Civil Court to try the objection. (2) A Deputy Commissioner staying his proceedings under this Section shall make an order requiring the objector, or, if for any reasons he deems it more equitable, the applicant, to institute such a suit within the time fixed, and, in the event of such a suit not being instituted within that time, may in his discretion, disallow the objection, or dismiss the application, as the case may be. (3) On a suit being instituted to try any objection under this Section, the Deputy Commissioner shall with reference to the objection, be guided by the orders passed by the Civil Court in the suit." 19. As can be noticed Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation is under chapter VI of the said Regulation and chapter VI pertains to partition and union of revenue paying estates. 20. Accordingly, the application before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in PP Case No. 116/05-06 being for the purpose of perfect petition, subject matter therein is covered under chapter VI of the Regulation 1886. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate that the procedure required under Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation is applicable in such proceeding. 21. Regulation 100 of the 1886 regulation inter-alia provides that if an objection is preferred, which raises any question of title, which had not been already determined by competent Court, the Deputy Commissioner shall stop the proceeding for such time as in his opinion is sufficient to admit the suit to be instituted in competent Civil Court to try the objection. Regulation 100 of the 1886 regulation inter-alia provides that if an objection is preferred, which raises any question of title, which had not been already determined by competent Court, the Deputy Commissioner shall stop the proceeding for such time as in his opinion is sufficient to admit the suit to be instituted in competent Civil Court to try the objection. Sub-section 2 further provides that the Deputy Commissioner while stopping the proceeding under sub-section 1 shall make an order requiring the objector to institute such a suit within the time fixed or for any reason if he deems it more applicable, the Deputy Commissioner may require the applicant of the partition suit to institute the suit. 22. Accordingly, the requirement of law under Regulation 100 is that in the event any objection is raised in the partition suit which requires adjudication on the question of title to the land, the Deputy Commissioner shall not further proceed with the partition suit and require the objector to file appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court for adjudication as regards the question of title. Further if the Deputy Commissioner has any reason which he deems fit to be more applicable in such event, the Deputy Commissioner may also require the application to file the required title Suit. 23. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, under Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation, this Court is of the view that the in the order dated 22-08-2006, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the procedure of law prescribed under Regulation 100 of the 1886 Regulation. 24. In such view of the matter, on an objection being raised by the objector and on the event that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner found that the said objection is based on certain deeds where the title is in some doubt, it was for the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to keep the partition suit in abeyance and ask the objector to file a Title Suit in the competent Civil court. Or in the event, if the Deputy Commissioner had reasons for which he deems it more suitable, the applicant could have also been asked to prefer the appropriate title suit. 25. Deputy Commissioner to keep the partition suit in abeyance and ask the objector to file a Title Suit in the competent Civil court. Or in the event, if the Deputy Commissioner had reasons for which he deems it more suitable, the applicant could have also been asked to prefer the appropriate title suit. 25. It is made clear that the alternative provision to ask the applicant to prefer Title suit is circumscribed by the condition that the Deputy Commissioner must record the appropriate reasons as to why it feels that it will be appropriate to ask the applicant to prefer title suit instead of the objector. Such recording of reasons by the Deputy Commissioner is essential in view of the provisions of Regulation 100 that otherwise it is incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to ask the objector to file title suit. Although there is an enabling provision to take an alternative view, the dominant requirement of Regulation 100(2) is to ask the objector to file such title suit cannot be ignored without any reason. 26. In such view of the matter as the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in its order dated 22-08-2003 had taken the aforesaid provision of Regulation 100 into consideration, the said order in its present form, rejecting objection of the objector, may be an appropriate ground for the respondent No. 3 to be take in an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. 27. In such view of the matter, the question for consideration, therefore before the Assam Board of Revenue would be as to whether the required provision under Regulation 100 more particularly, 100(2) of the Regulation 1886 had been duly followed or not. As the Assam Board of Revenue in exercising its appellate jurisdiction is of the view that such procedure had not been followed, it would also be appropriate for the Assam Board of Revenue to substitute its own view by exercising its appellate jurisdiction. 28. In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the Assam Board of Revenue in keeping the proceeding of partition in abeyance cannot be faulted with. 29. 28. In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the Assam Board of Revenue in keeping the proceeding of partition in abeyance cannot be faulted with. 29. As already alluded, the requirement of Regulation 100 of the Regulation 1886 is that in the event an objection is raised against the grant of partition by relying upon certain documents and there is a requirement of an adjudication in a title suit as regards, the validity of such documents, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to ask the objector to file appropriate title suit. The same being the dominant provision of Regulation 100, in order to invoke the other provision that in the event there are reasons for the Deputy Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion that it would be appropriate for the applicant to prefer the title suit, reasons thereof is mandatorily required to be recorded. 30. In such view of the matter and as agreed to by the parties, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Assam Board of Revenue to the extent of passing appropriate order under Regulation 100(2) of the Regulation 1886 requiring the objector to file the title suit. In the event the Assam Board of Revenue intends to take a view that it is the applicants who have to prefer the title suit, appropriate reasons shall be stated for arriving at such a conclusion. 31. It is further provided that the Assam Board of Revenue by exercising its power under Section 100 of the 1886 Regulation shall also fix time limit within which the Title Suit is to be preferred. 32. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed.