S.C. Das, J.— Heard learned counsel, Mr. D C Roy for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D C Nath for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No.4. 2. The fact, in short, necessary for disposal of this appeal,may be stated thus: Bhandari Choudhury, since deceased, predecessor of appellant Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (d), Haridhan Choudhury, since deceased, prede cessor of appellant Nos.2(a) to 2(e) and respdt. Nos.3 and 4 together filed WP(C) No.41771999 before this Court inter alia stating that their predecessors had been in possession of the land recorded in Khatian No.64 old Plot Nos.400, 401, 402, 403 measuring an area of 7.22 acres in Mouza -Dakshin Machmara, Kanchanpur, District-North Tripura, which was subsequently recorded in Khatian No.92, CS Plot Nos.1 104, 1102, 1103, 1456, 1457, 1153, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1118, 1121, 1106, 1105, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1120,1454 and 1455 which appertain to old Jote No.74. The petitioners and their predecessors had been in possession of the land exercising all acts of possession without any disturbance from any quarter. A proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC was drawn at the instance of respdt No.4 and others against predecessors of the writ petitioners and learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar by judgment dated 06.06.1961, decided the possession in favour of the predecessors of the writ petitioners. A copy of that judgment has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1. After that judgment, passed by learned Munsiff in Misc Case No.33/1960, the respdt No.4 and others brought a Title Suit No.75/1962 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, against the predece ssors of the petitioners and that suit was withdrawn on 20.09.1963. A copy of order sheet of that Title Suit has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, in the year 1996, respdt No.4 filed applications before Sub-Divisional Officer, (for short S.D.O.) Kanchanpur under Section 187 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short TLR & LR Act) seeking restoration of the land in favour of tribals since the possession was taken over by non-tribals in violation of the provisions of TLR & LR Act. Those petitions, filed under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act, were registered as Restoration Case Nos.87/1996 and 88/1996. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 25.9.1997, directed restoration of possession of the land in favour of the tribals.
Those petitions, filed under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act, were registered as Restoration Case Nos.87/1996 and 88/1996. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 25.9.1997, directed restoration of possession of the land in favour of the tribals. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Against that order, the writ petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act which was registered as Revenue Revision Case No.5/Rev/PS/1998 and by order, dated 27.3.1998, Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the Revenue Department remanded the case, for fresh hearing and disposal to the Collector, North Tripura District under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act. A copy of that order, passed by Principal Secretary, has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The District Collector, by order dated 14.06.1999, in Case No. Rev/Review/92/98 registered under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 disposed the review case and thereby upheld the order, dated 25.09.1997, passed by S.D.O, Kanchanpur. The writ petitioners challenged the order, passed by District Collector, dated 14.06.1999, in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court by a reasoned Judgment/order, dated 16.6.2010, dismissed the writ petition and hence the appellants filed the present writ appeal challenging the order passed by Single Bench of this Court. 3. The only point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Roy, is that the possession of the land was taken over by the predecessors of the appellants long before TLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force. So, the provisions of Section 187 of the Act with its subsequent amendments have no manner of application in the case of the appellants. The possession of the land in favour of the predecessors of the appellants was declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction, on 06.06.1961 and so the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by District Collector, has no bearing on the possession of appellants in the land in question. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order, passed by learned single Judge in the writ petition and also to set aside the order passed by District Collector. 4. Per contra, learned counsel, Mr.
Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order, passed by learned single Judge in the writ petition and also to set aside the order passed by District Collector. 4. Per contra, learned counsel, Mr. Nath, appearing for respdt Nos.1 to 3, has submitted that the possession of the land in question was taken over forcibly by the predecessors of the appellants and such transfer of land shall come within the mischief of Section 187 of TLR & LR Act and with its subsequent amendments. The Revenue Officer and the District Collector examined the material documents and passed order, according to law, to protect the interest of the tribals in the land which has been illegally transferred to non-tribals. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. In course of hearing, it was found that a similar and identical question has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in 2012(2)GLT 1116:Writ Appeal No.73/2007 (Kalimohan Sahaji & Anr. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.) by judgment dated 30.04.2012. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy made a futile attempt to distinguish the facts of the decided case with the case in hand and argued that in the case in hand, possession of land was taken over by the predecessors of the appellants before the TLR & LR Act came into force and so, the land cannot be a subject of restoration under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act. We have a glimpse to the decision of this ourt in Kalimohan Sahaji (supra). In that reported case, the possession was transferred to the non-tribals by an unregistered deed of sale, on 04.06.1967 i.e. before the cutoff date 01.01.1969, as prescribed in Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act and therefore, it was contended by the appellants that in that decided case the land would not have been a subject of restoration. In the present case, the predecessors of the appellants entered into possession not through a valid written document of transfer. Had there was a valid transfer before the TLR & LR Act came into force, the predecessors of the appellants would produce a registered deed of purchase but they could produce no such document. A transfer of immovable property without a registered instrument cannot be considered to be a valid transfer according to law. Admittedly, the land originally belonged to one Late Rangamani Reang, a tribal.
A transfer of immovable property without a registered instrument cannot be considered to be a valid transfer according to law. Admittedly, the land originally belonged to one Late Rangamani Reang, a tribal. Special provision has been prescribed in TLR & LR Act to protect the interest of tribals in the land belonged to them. The provisions prescribed in the TLR & LR Act regarding restoration of tribal land as was introduced after the 2nd amendment Act 1974, prescribes thus: "187. (1) No transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless— (a) the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or (b) where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of any such tribe, it is made with the previous permission of the Collector in writing in the manner prescribed; or (c) the transfer is by way of mortgage to a co-operative society or to a Bank or to the Central or the State Government: Provided that the land transferred to a co operative society or to a bank by way of mortgage in pursuance of clause (c) shall not be transferred by such society or bank to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without the permission of the Collector in writing. Explanation - In this sub-section, the expression 'a bank' shall have the same meaning as in section 109. 2(a) Not with standing anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but subject to the provisions of section 187A, no transfer of land by a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be valid unless made by a registered instrument. (b) No instrument of transfer made in contravention of subsection (1) shall be registered or in any way recorgnised as valid in any court exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdication.
(b) No instrument of transfer made in contravention of subsection (1) shall be registered or in any way recorgnised as valid in any court exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdication. 3(a) If a transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes is made on or after the first January, 1969 in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), any revenue officer, appointed specially for this purpose by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, may, of his own motion or on an application made in that behalf, and after giving the transferee an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing ejected the transferee or any person claiming under him from such land or part thereof. (b) When the revenue officer has passed any order under clause (a) he shall restore the transferred land or part therof to the transferer or his succor-in-interest: Privided that such order shall have effect from the first day of Baisakh next following in the date of the order. (4) No decree or order shall be passed by any court for the sale of the land or any portion thereof, of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe nor shall any such land be sold in execution of any decree or order. (5) When a certificate is filed for recovery of an arrear of land revenue in respect of the land of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, the Certificate Official shall, before a proclamation for sale of the land is issued in execution of the certificate, refer the case to a revenue officer appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (3) who may sell the land to a member of the Scheduled Tribes, if available, and, if not available, to any other person at a fair market price to be fixed by such revenue officer, not being less than the amount due in respect of the Certificate: Provided that if the homestead of the defaulting person is comprised in the lands such homestead shall not be sold: Provided further that any amount remaining out of the sale proceeds after satisfaction of the amount due in respect of the certificate shall be paid to the defaulting person." 6.
With a view to further strengthen the measures, to prevent alienation of tribal lands and for effective implementation of the provision for restoration, Sec. 187 was amended and in its place further stringent provisions were brought into effect by Sixth Amendment Act 1994, which reads thus : "187. (1) No transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless— (a) the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or (b) where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of the Schedule Tribes, it is made with the previous permission of the Collector in writing in the manner to be prescribed by rule; or (c) the transfer is by way of mortgage to a Co-operative Society or to a Bank or to the Tripura Housing Board, or to the Central or the State Government or any other financial institutions or Corporations as may be notified by the Government in the Official Gazette from time to time for the purpose. Provided that the land so mortgaged in pursuance of Clause (c) shall not be transferred by such mortgage to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. Explanation.—In this sub-section, the expression, 'a bank' shall have the same meaning as in Section 109. (2)(a) Notwithstanding anything conta ined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but subject to the provision of Section 187 A, no transfer of land belonging to a person is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless made by a registered instrument. (b) No transfer or instrument of transfer including a decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or Authority, made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be registered or in any way recognized as valid in any Court, Tribunal or Authority. (c) No decree or order shall be passed by any Court, Tribunal or Authority in any case other than the cases as specified in Clause(c) of sub-section (1) for the sale of the land or any portion thereof, of a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes nor shall any such land be sold in execution of any decree or order." (3) In the Principal Act, after Section 187 A, the following sections shall be inserted, namely: - 187B.
(1)On or after the 1st January, 1969— (a) if a transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes is made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 187 to a person other than a member of the Scheduled Tribes, a Revenue Officer specially appointed for this purpose by a notification in the Official Gazette, and having local jurisdiction may, notwith standing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on its own motion or on an application made in that behalf, and after giving the transferee and the transferer an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing evict such or any person claiming under him from such land or part thereof and shall restore the possession of the land to the transferer, or his successor in interest and for this purpose the Revenue Officer may use or cause to be used such force as may be considered necessary. (b) if any land owned by person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is occupied by any person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without lawful authority, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause (a) may restore the possession of such land to the person or successor in interest so dispossessed. (c) if a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is in occupation of Government land and eligible for allotment of such land under Section 14 of this Act, parts with possession or is dispossessed therefrom by a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause(a) may restore the possession of such land to that person, or his successor-in-interest as the case may be and refer to the competent authority under Section 14 of this Act for allotment of the land to such person. Explanation—For the purpose of this sub section, the successorin-interest means heirs, transferee or assignee in accordance with law or custom as applicable.
Explanation—For the purpose of this sub section, the successorin-interest means heirs, transferee or assignee in accordance with law or custom as applicable. (2) If any person not being a member of the Scheduled Tribes occupies or possesses the land held by or in occupation of a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in any manner as specified in sub-section(1) after the commencement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Sixth Amendment) Act, 1994 without any lawful authority he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with a fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 every offence punishable under sub-section (2) shall be cognizable and non-bailable and wherever any person is arrested and detained in custody in pursuance of provision of this section, the officer-incharge of the Police Station or Police Officer making the arrest shall forward the person to the Presiding Officer holding the Special Court of the jurisdiction and the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply mutatis mutandis for summary trial. (4) For the purpose of speedy trial of offence under this section the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court by notification constitute as many Special Courts as may be considered necessary, each consisting of an Officer not below the rank of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (5) For the cases referred to in sub-section (2), the Revenue Officer immediately after restoration of land under subsection (1) shall file a complaint in the Special Court constituted under sub-section (4) for action as provided, in sub-section (2). (6) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed by a Special Court under this section within sixty days of the passing of such order. 187. C. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the burden of proof for the purpose of Section 187 B that the transfer of land was not made in contravention of subsection (1) of Section 187 or occupation of land was not made without lawful authority shall lie on the transferee or occupier, as the case may be. 187.
187. D. (1) Where the possession of any land is restored to a person belonging to the scheduled Tribes under any of the above provisions is re-transferred by the person belonging Scheduled Tribes in contravention of section 187 and the Revenue Officer specially empowered has reasons to believe that the land holder belonging to Scheduled Tribes shall not be in a position to retain the land so retransferred even after subsequent restoration, the Revenue Officer shall evict the person to whom the land was re-transferred and entrust the management of the same to a Committee as may be constituted by the State Government with Scheduled Tribes members and Government Officials for a period of one year and if, after the expiry of this period, the Committee holds that the land holder belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall not be in a position to retain the land if restored, then such land shall vest to the Government free from all encumbrances and the Collector shall allot the land to the eligible tribals of the area under such condition as may be prescribed. (2) The manner of Constitution, conduct of business, powers and function of the Com mittee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. Explanation:-For the purpose of Section 187, 187B, 187C and 187D, the word 'transfer' shall mean sale, mortgage, lease, exchange and gift as defined in Transfer of property Act, 1882 and include parting with fully or partly of ownership or possession of any land or any interest therein in any other manner whatsoever but shall not include the requisition and acquisition of land under any law for the time being in force. 187. E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a petition for restoration of possession of land by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes against a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall lie at any time. 187. F. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no suit for declaration of title over any land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall lie in a Civil Court and no Civil Court shall pass a decree or order by which title of land stands transferred from a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes to a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. 187.
187. G. (1) Wherever an offence under this Act has been committed after the commence ment of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Sixth Amendment) Act, 1994 by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was committed was in change of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or a connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section (a) "company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm". 7. Single Bench of this Court, considering the objects and reasons of the provisions reproduced above and taking into accournt the facts and circumstances and the material placed before it, in Paras 19 to 22 of the judgment observed thus: "19.
7. Single Bench of this Court, considering the objects and reasons of the provisions reproduced above and taking into accournt the facts and circumstances and the material placed before it, in Paras 19 to 22 of the judgment observed thus: "19. As the writ petitioners could not produce any document to reflect transfer of land to them for the original tribal owner Late Reang, their possession of the tribal land has to be declared as possession without lawful authority and forcible and since the statutory changes incorporated through the 6th Amendment with effect from 11.2.1996 were intended to restore possession of tribal land occupied without lawful authority and the Revenue Officer are expected to restore land to the dispossessed tribal, it cannot be said that such power of restoration can be exercised only for post 1.1.1969 land transfers and not for unlawfully occupied land possessed from an earlier date, as such an interpretation would defeat the very objects of the amendment incorporated in the TLR&LR Act. 20. The writ petitioners in the present case, could have availed of the remedy available under Section 93 of the TLR&LR Act to challenge the impugned order of restoration. But instead of availing the statutory appeal, the petitioners have approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction. When the TLR&LR Act provides for remedies by way of Appeal, Revision and Review and a complete redressel mechanism is provided for those aggrieved by any order passed under the Act, I am of the opinion that exercise of the writ jurisdiction is a case of this nature would be wholly unjustified in the absence of any special circumstances warran ting exercise of writ power. 21.1 find from the reading of the order passed by the SDM on 25.9.1997 as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate on 14.6.1999 that the relevant considerations to adjudicate the rival claim have been made by the two Revenue Authorities. It must also be noted that the District Magistrate was exercising review power in pursuant to an order passed on 27.3.1998 in Revision and since no challenge is made to the Revisional Authority's order dated 27.3.1998 passed at the instance of the writ petitioners, this is an additional ground for this Court to decline to interfere with the restoration order affirmed by the District Magistrate on 14.6.1999. 22.
22. It must also be noted that the disposed land owners were not debarred from seeking remedy under the Act as they had withdrawn the Title Suit filed earlier, with liberty to file a fresh suit - which can be understood to take into account a proceeding under the TLR&LR Act." 8. In the case of Kalimohan Sahaji (supra) this Court taking into consideration the provisions prescribed in the Act in Paras 11 and 12 of the judgment held thus: "11. Let us now answer the points raised by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty in view of the position of law noticed above. If we carefully and meticulously go through the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 187, both before and after the Sixth Amendment Act, it would appear that any transfer of land belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be effected only by a registered instrument. So, any instrument, not being a registered one, has no value in the eye of law and no Court shall recognize such an instrument. The appellants and their predecessor were claiming their right under an unregistered instrument. If that instrument/deed goes, there is nothing for the appellants to show that the transfer was effected before 01.01.1969. Sub-Section (3) of Section 187 was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act came into force. After Sixth Amendment, Sub-Section (3) has been deleted and at present there is nothing to claim that transfer held before 01.01.1969 shall not be disturbed. Clause (b) of Section 187B, as reproduced above, speaks that if any land owned by person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is occupied by any person, who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without lawful authority, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner as provided in Clause (a) of Section 187B may restore the possession of such land to the person or successor in interest so dispossessed. According to proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 187 of the Act, as it was before Sixth Amendment Act, 1994, a transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal would only be effected strictly under a registered instrument and not otherwise and such registered instrument was to be made with the previous written permission of the Collector and otherwise it would be deemed to be void.
In the case in hand, the alleged deed of transfer, effected by Nama Charan Chakma in favour of Lalit Mohan Sahaji, as alleged on 04.06.1967, is of no consequence because any such transfer by dint of an unregistered instrument was just void, irrespective of the transaction was before or after 01.01.1969. The word, 'transfer' has been defined/explained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 187(d), which includes transfer of possession of any land or any interest therein in any manner whatsoever. The decision of the learned Single Judge that the transfer of possession was also a transfer and so it shall come within the purview of the mischief of Section 187, was a correct finding and was according to the law laid down in the Act. It is a settled principle that "What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". While transfer of land between tribal to nontribal has been completely forbidden without a registered instrument with previous permission in writing from the Collector, any instrument in violation of such provision, in whatever manner it may be, is liable to be treated as void ab initio and deserves no consideration in the eye of law. Further, we find that Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, was in existence before Sixth Amendment Act, came into force on 11.02.1996. The writ petition was filed in 1997 claiming advantage of the provisions prescribed in Sub-Section (3) of Section 187, which was not in existence at the relevant point of time of decision of the writ petition. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, therefore, has no merit at all. 12. Section 187(C) has prescribed that the burden of proof is on the transferee or occupier to show that the occupation of land was not made without lawful authority, and as such, burden cannot be shifted on the tribal transferor. The appellants and their predecessor centered their claim based on the impugned unregistered agreement dated 04.06.1967, which has got no legal implication at all. No other evidence adduced by them. Under such circumstances, according to the scheme of law prescribed under the Act, the land was liable to be restored to the tribal transferee. The argument of learned counsel, Mr.
The appellants and their predecessor centered their claim based on the impugned unregistered agreement dated 04.06.1967, which has got no legal implication at all. No other evidence adduced by them. Under such circumstances, according to the scheme of law prescribed under the Act, the land was liable to be restored to the tribal transferee. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, that since it was not a transfer according to law, whereas the appellants and their predecessor were/are in possession, they cannot be ejected except the procedure prescribed by law, has also stands no merit at all. The provisions, reproduced above, have clearly prescribed the procedure, to restore the land if it is found that the transfer was effected in violation thereof. The impugned order dated 13.02.1996 passed by respondent No.2, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition." 9. The writ petitioners claimed that their predecessors purchased the land in dispute in the year 1955 from Late Rangmani Reang, the predecessor of respdt No.4. The record of right of the land is admittedly in the name of tribals. No documentary evidence produ ced by the writ petitioners in support of their title over the land. The Revenue Officer, taking into consideration, the fact that the possession of the tribal land was taken over by the non-tribal without having a valid document of title, held that the possession should be restored to the tribal. Since the land in question belonged to tribal and since the provisions of TLR & LR Act prescribes that a tribal land cannot be transferred to non-tribal without permission of the Collector in writing, since no time limit is prescribed for restoration, the revenue authorities cannot be said to have passed an order without jurisdiction. Section 187( 1) (b) prescribes that if any land owned by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes is occupied by any person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes without lawful authority, then the Revenue Officer in the same manner, as prescribed in Clause (a) may restore the possession of such land to the person or predecessor or successor-in-interest so dispossessed.
The claim of the appellants that they are in continuous possession of the land can in no way help them or protect their possession from the mischief of Section 187 of TLR&LR Act, if they fail to show that their such possession, or the possession of their predecessors, in the tribal land was/is according to the procedure prescribed by law. Reference to previous proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC, or the Civil Suit instituted by the private respdts cannot operate as a clog in resorting to take action under the provisions of TLR & LRAct for restoration of tribal land. The effect of continuous prossession, claimed by the writ petitioners, may be decided only by comp etent Civil Court taking evidence thereof. The appellants neither approach the competent Civil Court nor approached the revenue authority against the order passed by District Collector and so, the Single Bench of this Court, in our considered opinion, rightly refused the relief claimed in the writ petition. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, it stands dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. _____________