A.M. Bujor Barua, J.Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(vi), 2, 3(i) to 3(xiii) and 4, when the matter is called upon and taken up for hearing. Mr. K.K. Upadhyay, learned Junior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. In this writ petition, an order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.98RA(DBR)/2008 has been assailed. The basic facts leading to this writ petition is that a plot of land measuring 5 Bigha covered by Dag No.315/477 under Khatian No.285, Patta No.168 of village Sadhubhasa Part-II under Bogribari Circle in the district of Dhubri was purchased by one Khabiruddin Ahmed and Jamila Khatun, being the father and mother, respectively of the petitioner. It is stated that the said purchase was made by a registered Sale Deed No.2961/1980 and it was executed on 22.03.1980. It is stated that the purchase was made from one Md. Mofizuddin, son of late Hazi Ahmed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said land was duly recorded in his name and the possession of the land was also delivered to the purchasers of the land, who are his mother and father.

3. It is stated that in the year 1986, one Abdul Karim Molla, father of the respondent No.2 and 4/grandfather of the respondent Nos. 1(i) 1(vi) and 3(i) to 3(xiii) had instituted a Title Suit being TS No.99/1986 against the State of Assam regarding a plot of khas land measuring 45 Bighas 2 Kathas and 13 lechas in block Dag No.315. It is stated that the said plot of land of 45 bighas 2 kathas 13 lechas of land also incidentally includes the 5 bighas of land, which was purchased by the father and the mother of the petitioner from Md. Mofizuddin. The said Title Suit No.99/1986 was decreed by the judgment and order dated 21.01.1987 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri.

4. The said judgment and order dated 21.01.1987 is available in the records of the learned Board of Revenue, Assam. From the said judgment and order, it can be seen that the Title Suit No.99/1986 was instituted by one Abdul Karim Molla, son of Late Rahman Ali Molla and where the State of Assam represented by the Collector, Dhubri district was the sole defendant. In other words, neither the present petitioner nor their predecessors were arrayed as defendants in the said Title Suit No.99/1986. The said Title Suit No.99/1986 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein and against the State of Assam, wherein the right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the scheduled land was declared in favour of the plaintiff Abdul Karim Molla.

5. In the present case, after purchasing the land from the aforesaid Md. Mofizuddin, the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner had filed a mutation case being Mutation Case No.137/05-06 before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bogribari. The said mutation case preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri. By the order dated 03.07.2006, the said appeal was disposed of with a finding that the petitioner has been possessing the 5 bighas of land and accordingly ordered for a correction of the records in favour of the petitioner in respect of the 5 bighas of land. The said order of the Settlement Officer was challenged by one Md. Azizur Rahman Molla before the learned Assam Board of Revenue. By the order dated 18.07.2006, the learned Assam Board of Revenue, on the premises that no opportunity of hearing was given to the aforesaid Azizur Rahman Molla, had set aside the order dated 03.07.2006 of the Settlement Officer, Dhubri and accordingly remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Dhubri for fresh adjudication.

6. Upon the matter being remanded back, the Settlement Officer, Dhubri by order dated 05.08.2008 after hearing the parties, including the aforesaid Azizur Rahman Molla, came to the conclusion that as per land record, the 5 bighas of land of Dag No.315/477 of Khatian No.285 earlier stood in the name of Mofizuddin during the year 1968 and he had sold the land to Khabiruddin Ahmed and Jamila Khatun in the year 1980. The said sale had taken place prior to the inception of the Title Suit No.99/1986, but in the Title Suit, neither the seller nor the purchaser had been made a party. Accordingly, the Settlement Officer, Dhubri concluded that the land involved in Title Suit No.99/1986 does not relate to the land of the present petitioner. On the matter being remanded back, the Settlement Officer had proceeded on the basis of its case No.25/2006 and in the said proceeding, the aforesaid Azizur Rahman Molla, who was the appellant before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, was shown also as the appellant. Accordingly, by the order dated 05.08.2008, the proceeding initiated by the aforesaid Azizur Rahman Molla was dismissed and the earlier order of the Settlement Officer dated 03.07.2006 was up held.

7. against the order dated 05.08.2008, the aforesaid Azizur Rahman Molla again preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue against the present petitioner. The said appeal was numbered as Case No.98RA(DBR)/2008. By the judgment and order dated 27.04.2009, the learned Assam Board of Revenue had set aside the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri. The sole ground on which the learned Assam Board of Revenue had interfered with the order dated 05.08.2008 of the Settlement Officer, Dhubri is that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.99/1986 declaring the right, title, interest and possession in favour of late Abdul Karim Molla had attained its finality on the same being confirmed by this Court in its order dated 20.08.2004 passed in WP(C) No.5794/2004. The learned Assam Board of Revenue arrived at a conclusion that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.99/1986 and the order dated 20.08.2004 in WP(C) No.5794/2004 were not challenged by the present petitioner before any appropriate forum. Hence, according to the learned Assam Board of Revenue, the said orders are binding upon the present petitioner and the reasoning given by the Settlement Officer, Dhubri that the petitioner was not a party in the said proceeding before the Civil Court and the High Court are not sustainable as the decree of the Civil Court and the order of the High Court were passed regarding the same land in question. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Assam Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.04.2009 had set aside the order dated 05.08.2008 of the Settlement Officer, Dhubri.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the issue for adjudication before this Court is whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No.99/1986, which was subsequently confirmed by this Court by its order dated 20.08.2004 in WP(C) No.5794/2004, is binding upon the present petitioner or not.

9. The law as regards to the question as to whether a judgment and decree of a Civil Court is binding upon a person, who was not a party in the said Civil Court proceeding has been settled. The aforesaid question can also be looked from the point of view as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court can be executed against a person, who was not a party in the said civil proceeding. It is the settled position of law that any judgment and decree that may have been passed by a Civil Court, cannot be executed against a person, who was not a party to the said civil proceeding.

10. Drawing analogy from the said position of law, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No.99/1986, which was confirmed by this Court by its order dated 20.08.2004 in WP(C) No.5794/2004 is binding on the present petitioner.

11. In view of such findings of this Court, the reasoning given by the learned Assam Board of Revenue that the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.99/1986, as confirmed by this Court by its order dated 20.08.2004 in WP(C) No.5794/2004, is binding on the present petitioner, is incorrect and not sustainable.

12. The learned Assam Board of Revenue having interfered with the order of the Settlement Officer, Dhubri dated 05.08.2008 on the sole ground that the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.99/1986 is binding on the present petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate that the said order of the learned Assam Board of Revenue dated 27.04.2009 in Case No.98RA(DBR)/2008 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue passed in Case No.98RA(DBR)/2008 is hereby set aside.

14. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.