Section 147 appeals from appellate orders must be decided by a Division Bench.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13 November 2025 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 76RA(C)/2025, whereby the Board set aside the order dated 4 July 2025 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi Districts, in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2025.

The petitioner contended that the appeal before the Board arose from an appellate order and, under Regulation 45 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963, ought to have been heard by a Division Bench rather than by the Chairman sitting singly.

She further contended that the impugned order was passed without notice or an opportunity of hearing to her. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 admitted that no notice had been issued, but argued that the matter had merely been remanded and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.

Whether the Assam Board of Revenue could validly decide an appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, arising from an appellate order, through a Single Bench/Chairman, contrary to Regulation 45 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963.

Whether the impugned order was invalid for having been passed without issuing notice to, or granting an opportunity of hearing to, the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Regulation 45 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963 classifies matters to be heard by Benches and provides that an appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 arising from an original order may be decided by a Single Bench, whereas an appeal arising from an appellate order must be decided by a Division Bench.

The principles of natural justice require that a person whose rights or interests may be adversely affected by an adjudicatory order must receive notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court treated these requirements as facets of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the Settlement Officer’s order dated 4 July 2025 was an appellate order; consequently, the subsequent appeal under Section 147 had to be heard by a Division Bench under Regulation 45. The Chairman, sitting singly, therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

Independently, the Court noted the admitted absence of notice to the petitioner, who had benefited from the Settlement Officer’s order. Although the respondents argued that the matter was only remanded and that no prejudice had resulted, the Board had nevertheless drawn conclusions on the merits while setting aside the earlier order. The absence of notice and hearing accordingly violated natural justice and rendered the decision contrary to Articles 14 and 21.

The Board was directed to rehear and decide the appeal afresh through a duly constituted Division Bench, after providing the parties an opportunity of hearing.

The Court requested disposal within six months from the parties’ appearance, directed the parties to appear before the Board on 9 September 2026, and granted liberty to file a certified copy of the judgment for constitution of the Division Bench.

Any interim order was vacated.