Mutation without notice to an existing co-owner violates Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.

The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 12 October 2002 with Respondent No. 5 and the predecessors-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for purchase of 10 lechas out of 2 kathas 10 lechas of land originally covered by Dag No. 1341, Patta No. 194, Satgaon, Mouza Beltola.

A registered sale deed was executed on 12 March 2008, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for mutation.

On 20 March 2014, the Circle Officer mutated 1.34 Are out of 6.21 Are of Dag No. 1429, Patta No. 496, in the petitioner’s favour.

At that time, Respondent No. 4’s name was already recorded along with the petitioner’s vendors, but no notice was issued to her before the mutation order was passed.

Respondent No. 4 challenged the mutation before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), who allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation on 8 May 2018 for violation of the statutory notice requirement under Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The Assam Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 15 July 2025, while granting liberty to seek mutation afresh before the Circle Officer.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Whether the High Court should exercise its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the Assam Board of Revenue’s order affirming the setting aside of the petitioner’s mutation.

Whether mutation could validly be granted in favour of the petitioner without issuing notice to Respondent No. 4, whose name was already mutated as a co-owner in respect of the same land, under Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Section 52(1) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 requires publication of notice to persons who object to registration of the applicant’s name or dispute the nature or extent of the interest claimed; Section 52(2) additionally requires service of notice on the alleged transferor or, where applicable, the transferor’s heirs.

The statutory notice requirement applies where an existing recorded co-owner may dispute the applicant’s claimed interest, even if the transaction concerns only a portion of the land.

An order granting mutation without notice to such an interested and recorded co-owner is contrary to Section 52 and is liable to be set aside.

The High Court may decline certiorari interference where the subordinate revenue authorities have correctly applied the law and have preserved the petitioner’s right to seek appropriate relief afresh.

The Court held that Respondent No. 4 was an existing recorded co-owner of the land along with the petitioner’s vendors. Consequently, her interest could be affected by the petitioner’s mutation application, and Section 52 required that she be given notice before mutation was granted.

The fact that the sale concerned only a portion of the larger holding did not dispense with the statutory notice requirement because the application related to the nature and extent of the petitioner’s interest in land already recorded in Respondent No. 4’s name.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner therefore correctly set aside the mutation for breach of Section 52, and the Assam Board of Revenue correctly affirmed that decision.

Since the Board had also granted the petitioner liberty to apply for mutation afresh, no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Article 226 was established.

It held that the earlier mutation was invalid because it had been granted without notice to Respondent No. 4, an existing co-owner, as required by Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to seek fresh mutation on the basis of the registered Sale Deed No. 4104/2008 dated 12 March 2008 for the purchased 10 lechas, in accordance with law.