afore-stated events and upon perusal of the records, had observed that the jamabandi [Records-of-Right] revealed that mutation granted by the Circle Officer in favour of the respondents therein was on the basis of a gift deed but it nowhere mentioned about any Gift Deed registration number. The petitioner no. 1 was the respondent no. 6 in Case no. 152RA[DIB]/2006 whereas the petitioner no. 3, the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 5 were the respondent no. 6, the respondent no. 10 and the respondent no. 12 respectively in Case no. 153RA[DIB]/2006. The petitioner no. 2 herein was not a respondent in any of the three revenue appeals preferred by Ram Gopal Garodia. But the vendor of the petitioner no. 2, Tultul Ahmed, the proforma respondent no. 10 herein was the respondent no. 3 in all the three revenue appeals instituted before the Board of Revenue, Assam. The Board of Revenue, Assam had observed that the appellant [Ram Gopal Garodia] denied the fact of execution of gift deed by him in favour of the respondents and the said aspect was neither discussed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh passed in the Orders, all dated 21.08.2006, passed in mutation appeals, that is, [i] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 18/2006; [ii] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 19/2006; and [iii] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 20/2006. The alleged registered gift deed was not placed on record by the respondents to dispel the allegation. The respondents’ side did not produce any registered gift deed even before the Board of Revenue, Assam, on the basis of which mutation orders were passed in their favour. The Board of Revenue, Assam has reached a finding that mutation in respect of the parcels of land under reference stood in favour of the original appellant [Ram Gopal Garodia] since the year 1957 and the same was cancelled by the Circle Officer without issuance of any notice to the appellant [Ram Gopal Garodia], who was the owner and pattadar of those parcels of land at the relevant point of time. With such finding, the mutations effected by the Circle Officer in favour of the respondents in respect of the parcels of land in question as well as the Orders dated 21.08.2006 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh in mutation appeals, [i] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 18/2006; [ii] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 19/2006; and [iii] Mutation Appeal Case no. DRP 20/2006 were held to be not sustainable as the same were passed without following proper procedure and not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Orders dated 21.08.2006 passed in mutation appeals were set aside and the appeals were remanded back for a fresh hearing granting liberty to the parties to submit their relevant legal documents in support of
