JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging, interaliaa judgment dated 18.09.2017, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Appeal Case No. 55RA(N)/2015 by which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed. The appeal was preferred against an order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (herein after ADC) (Revenue), Nagaon whereby the Chitha Mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the name of the original pattadar was restored. 2. Before going to the impugned judgment and the grounds of challenge, it would be convenient to narrate the brief facts of the case. 3. It is the projected case of the petitioner that vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2007, the petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 16 Lechas from the original vendor Krishnaram Keot. Pursuant to the said purchase, vide order dated 22.08.2008, Chitha Mutation was done in favour of the petitioner. 4. After the aforesaid process was over, two sons of the original vendor along with another person had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Kaliabor Revenue Circle for cancellation of mutation in favour of the petitioner which was registered as Case No. 9/2008-09. The aforesaid case, however was withdrawn vide an order dated 15.10.2009. Long thereafter, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon again for cancellation of mutation and restoration of the name of the original vendor. The petitioner has projected the said respondent nos. 4 to 7 as strangers and was not related at all to the vendor of the petitioner Krishnaram Keot. The respondent nos. 4 to 7 however claimed that they were residing on the aforesaid plot of land for a long period of time and the land in question was orally gifted to them by the vendor Krishnaram Keot. The aforesaid application however was disposed of without giving the petitioner any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and subsequently vide order dated 07.03.2015, the said application was allowed and the mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Another pertinent point which the said respondent nos. 4 to 7 had raised was that the original vendor had died in the year 1965. 5. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid projection regarding the death of the original vendor in 1965 was wholly incorrect and the actual date of death was 07.01.2008. 6. Another pertinent point which the said respondent nos. 4 to 7 had raised was that the original vendor had died in the year 1965. 5. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid projection regarding the death of the original vendor in 1965 was wholly incorrect and the actual date of death was 07.01.2008. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue (herein after ABR) which as observed above vide the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2017 has dismissed the appeal. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid judgment by which the order dated 07.03.2015 of the learned ADC, Nagaon was confirmed which has been questioned in this writ petition. 7. I have heard Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the State respondents were represented by Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Shri P. Sundi, the learned counsel. 8. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned ADC as well as the learned ABR had failed to appreciate the fact that the entire exercise of filing an application for cancellation of mutation by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was backed by ulterior motive and there was no bona fide at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relief sought for by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 is not to record their names but that of the original vendor who they claimed had passed away in 1965. He further submits that apart from the fact that the legal heirs of the original vendor who may be deemed to be competent to raise any issue regarding the sale of the plot of land to the petitioner had withdrawn the case no. 9/2008-09 vide order dated 15.10.2009, the said legal heirs had also instituted T.S. 1(K)/2016 for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 06.11.2007 in favour of the petitioner. However, on 21.08.2020, the suit was withdrawn and accordingly dismissed and no liberty was sought for. 9. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel submits that the learned ABR committed a fundamental error in upholding the order dated 07.03.2015, by which the mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. However, on 21.08.2020, the suit was withdrawn and accordingly dismissed and no liberty was sought for. 9. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel submits that the learned ABR committed a fundamental error in upholding the order dated 07.03.2015, by which the mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. He submits that the ABR failed to appreciate the fact that when a registered Sale Deed was in existence, the validity of which though initially questioned by the legal heirs had withdrawn such challenge without liberty, an application for cancellation of mutation by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 who are strangers to the proceedings cannot be entertained at all. He submits that the learned ABR had embarked into an unauthorized field which involves the validity or otherwise of a Registered Sale Deed. He accordingly submits that the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2017 of the learned ABR confirming the order dated 07.03.2015 of cancellation of mutation be interfered with and the same be set aside. 10. The State is represented by Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, who submits that the contest is between the petitioner and the private respondents and the private respondents would raise the appropriate defence. She however submits that the learned ABR had proceeded in accordance with law and the impugned judgment does not require any interference. 11. The private respondent nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Shri P. Sundi, the learned counsel. Shri Sundi, the learned counsel has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 18.01.2018. 12. In his submission, Shri Sundi, the learned counsel submits that there is no error either in the order dated 07.03.2015 by which the mutation was cancelled or in the judgment of the ABR dated 18.09.2017. He submits that it is the respondent nos. 4 to 7 who are in possession of the land on the basis of an oral gift by the original owner, Krishnaram Keot. To substantiate the said applicant, Shri Sundi, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the plaint filed in T.S. 1(K)/2016 in which the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of Krishnaram Keot. Referring to the relief prayed for, the learned counsel has submitted that one of the relief was for confirmation of possession by which it will be clear that the petitioner was not in possession. 13. Referring to the relief prayed for, the learned counsel has submitted that one of the relief was for confirmation of possession by which it will be clear that the petitioner was not in possession. 13. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel in his rejoinder has submitted that the aforesaid T.S. 1(K)/2016 being dismissed on withdrawal, the aforesaid submission of the respondent no. 4 would have no legs to stand. 14. By referring Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim, Shri Sharma, the learned counsel has submitted that no leave was sought for such withdrawal and therefore, even a suit by the legal heirs of Krishnaram Keot, at this stage is not maintainable. He submits that the entire edifice of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 regarding oral gift deed being the mode of coming into possession would collapse as there is no concept in law governing the parties who are Hindus regarding oral gift deed of immovable property (land) where registration is mandatory. 15. Even otherwise, Shri Sharma, learned counsel submits that the Sale Deed was of the year 2007 and as on today, even the proper recourse to challenge the same by way of a civil suit is barred by limitation. 16. The rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 17. First let us examine the status of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 on whose instance the Citha mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide the order dated 07.03.2015 which has been affirmed by the learned ABR. The said respondents are neither the original vendor nor any of his legal heirs. The only semblance of right is claimed from an oral gift deed by the original owner. The law governing the parties, who are Hindus does not recognize an oral gift deed of immovable property for which registration is compulsory. In the instant case, there is no such registration or any formal procedure to transfer the right. 18. The other factor which is of immense importance is that there is a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2007 in favour of the petitioner by the original owner Krishnaram Keot and till date the said Sale Deed has not been successfully challenged in any forum of law. 18. The other factor which is of immense importance is that there is a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2007 in favour of the petitioner by the original owner Krishnaram Keot and till date the said Sale Deed has not been successfully challenged in any forum of law. In absence of any successful challenge of the said Sale Deed, the right of the petitioner over the plot of land in question cannot be tinkered with. It further appears that while dealing with the application of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 for cancellation of mutation, proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner. If such opportunity would have granted it could have been pointed out that such adjudication, perhaps was not even warranted for want of locus and competence on the part of the complainant. Further, the earlier events wherein such challenge was initially instituted by the sons of the vendor and was withdrawn on 15.10.2009 in Case No. 09/2008-09 also could not be brought to notice. Further, the learned ADC, Revenue erred in law in presuming that the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner was not a valid document on the basis of a bald statement that the vendor had expired earlier. The learned ABR in the appeal preferred failed to appreciate the fact that the validity or otherwise of the Sale Deed in question has to be challenged only in a Civil Court and only in the event when a decree of cancellation of the Sale Deed is passed with a consequential relief of issuing a Precept, a direction for correction of the land records in the jamabandi may arise. The aforesaid powers to adjudicate a dispute challenging the validity of a registered Sale Deed is in the realm of a civil dispute and within the domain of a Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon did not have the power and jurisdiction to make any adverse presumption against a registered Sale Deed. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for interference has been made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2017 by the ABR in Appeal No. 55RA(N)-2015 affirming the order dated 07.03.2015 of the learned ADC (Revenue), Nagaon in Misc Appeal No. 102/2012-13 is set aside. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for interference has been made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2017 by the ABR in Appeal No. 55RA(N)-2015 affirming the order dated 07.03.2015 of the learned ADC (Revenue), Nagaon in Misc Appeal No. 102/2012-13 is set aside. Consequently, the name of the petitioner is to be restored in the concerned Citha Mutation. 20. No order as to cost.