JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. R.K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8. Despite due notice from this court there is no representation from the respondents No.5, 6, 7 and 9. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners who live in the neighbourhood of the disputed diverted pond, where the diversion has been carried out illegally, have urged this court to inquire how the entire pond was earth-filled and diverted to bastu category of land without due permission from the Collector of the District in terms of Section 20 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, ‘TLR & LR Act, 1960’) and thereafter, having regard to the outcome of inquiry, to evict the person/s who have been possessing the said diverted land and to restore the pond to its original status. 3. At the outset, Mr. R.K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8, has submitted that though from the records it would appear that 9(nine) individuals purchased the questioned diverted pond, but only 5(five) of them had been added as the respondents including the respondent No.8. The other 4(four) persons have not been added as the respondents to have their say on the matter. As such, this writ petition cannot be maintained, it should be axed at the threshold. 4. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that what the petitioners have averred in this writ petition, has been ratified by the respondents No.1 and 2 by their additional counter-affidavit filed on 05.08.2016. 5. It transpires from the said additional counter-affidavit that the respondent No.4 was the owner of a land measuring 0.36 acres pertaining to old plot No.6473/48552 comprised in old khatian No.27853 of mouja Agartala sheet No.8. 5. It transpires from the said additional counter-affidavit that the respondent No.4 was the owner of a land measuring 0.36 acres pertaining to old plot No.6473/48552 comprised in old khatian No.27853 of mouja Agartala sheet No.8. By the order dated 16.05.2006, the respondent No.4 was allowed to divert 0.06 acres of land from pond to bastu for dwelling purpose, but with a direction that the status quo shall be maintained by the respondent No.4 in respect of residual 0.30 acres of land for conserving the environment or the source of water for handling the fire incident. Later on, a proceeding was drawn up under Section 20 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, being case No.81/2006 against the respondent No.4 and nine other individuals for unlawfully diverting the substantial part of the residual land. From the inquiry, it has revealed that the respondent No.4 nominated and constituted one Maniklal Modak Bhowmik as her attorney and that attorney sold out 0.30 acres to other nine individuals including the respondents No.5 to 9. Even after the said questioned sale, the respondent No.4 applied for diversion of the entire land measuring 0.36 acres by way of suppressing the fact that she was earlier granted permission to divert part of the pond measuring 0.06 acres. Out of 0.36 acres, 0.31 acres was sold out in the year 2003 to the nine individual purchasers. From the inquiry, it further revealed that the respondent No.4 virtually misutilised the order dated 16.05.2006 to fill up the entire pond and to give the impression that she had the order for diverting the entire land. Be that as it may, the Mutation Officer had given mutation in favour of the respondent No.8 and he has got the separate khatian after purchase and by virtue of that khatian at least the respondent No.4 has got the separate holding from the Agartala Municipal Council and on taking due permission, constructed a residential building thereon. 6. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has clearly made a statement that on the basis of the petition filed under Section 20 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 no diversion has been permitted by the Deputy Magistrate. 6. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has clearly made a statement that on the basis of the petition filed under Section 20 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 no diversion has been permitted by the Deputy Magistrate. According to the communication dated 12.11.2012 (Annexure-R/5 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 on 06.08.2013), “the concerned Deputy Collector & Magistrate are vested powers u/s 20 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960”. Be it mentioned here that the statutory power always lies with the Collector of the District. This communication only speaks of the delegation of power for convenience. 7. Appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that the proceedings are required to be instituted by the DCM, Sadar under Section 20 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and accordingly the proceeding, being Case No.81/2006 against the respondent No.4 and nine other individuals including the respondents No.5 to 9 has commenced for unlawfully diverting the substantial part of the land measuring 0.36 acres, as stated. It has been also asserted that the entire pond has been earth-filled and its character has been totally changed against the initial order of diversion, where it has been categorically observed that the status of the pond measuring 0.30 acres shall have to be maintained by the respondent No.4. 8. From the table below, particulars of the relevant deed of purchase, the purchasers, could be availed : Sl. No. Name of purchasers Regd. Deed No. Registration Date Area of land involved 1. Sri Anil Debbarma, s/o Subal Debbarma 1-5897 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 2. Sri Girendra Debbarma, s/o Lt. Sonadhan Debbarma 1-5898 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 3. Smt. Padmaswari Debbarma, w/o Harendra Debbarma 1-5899 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 4. Smt. Budhu Laxmi Debbarma, w/o Nanda Lal Debbarma 1-5900 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 5. Sri Rabindra Debbarma, s/o Chandra Mohan Debbarma 1-5901 11-07-2003 2 ganda 6. Sri Siddhartha Debbarma, s/o Joy Kr. Debbarma 1-5902 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 7. Smt. Joy Laxmi Debbarma, w/o Chandra Mani Debbarma 1-5903 11-07-2003 2 ganda 8. Smt. Esma Debbarma, w/o Naresh Debbarma 1-5904 11-07-2003 2 ganda 9. Sri Manoranjan Debbarma, s/o Mograi Debbarma 1-5905 11-07-2003 2 ganda TOTAL 15½ ganda 0.30 acre There cannot be any confusion as to transfer of the residual land. Debbarma 1-5902 11-07-2003 1½ ganda 7. Smt. Joy Laxmi Debbarma, w/o Chandra Mani Debbarma 1-5903 11-07-2003 2 ganda 8. Smt. Esma Debbarma, w/o Naresh Debbarma 1-5904 11-07-2003 2 ganda 9. Sri Manoranjan Debbarma, s/o Mograi Debbarma 1-5905 11-07-2003 2 ganda TOTAL 15½ ganda 0.30 acre There cannot be any confusion as to transfer of the residual land. From the field survey it has revealed that the entire pond was diverted by earth-filling. 9. On 10.06.2008, the Deputy Magistrate & Collector, Sadar passed an order to restore the entire 0.36 acres of land to its original classification “pukur” besides imposing penalty of Rs.10,000 on the respondent No.4 and Rs.5,000 each on the nine purchasers. The DCM, Sadar by the said order dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-R/2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2), has invalidated the permission earlier accorded to the respondent No.4 on 16.05.2006 for diverting the land measuring 0.06 acres from ‘pukur' to homestead. Against that order dated 10.06.2008, nine individual purchasers who purchased the land from the respondent No.4, had preferred an appeal under Section 93(1)(a) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, being Case No.01/2009. However, the said appeal has been rejected by the SDM, Sadar on 15.10.2009 on the ground of non-prosecution. Thus, the order of the DCM, Sadar dated 10.06.2008 has reached its finality. 10. However, it appears that the SDM, Sadar had unilaterally accorded the permission for diversion to Smt. Esma Debarma, Sri Siddhartha Debbarma and Sri Girendra Debbarma, out of those nine individual purchasers. The order by which the said permission was granted, according to the respondents No.1 and 2, has not been interfered with by the Collector at all. The respondent No.8 was also allowed the mutation. According to the respondents No.1 and 2, in view of the earlier order of diversion, though the said order of diversion was later on recalled by the order dated 10.06.2008, that fact was not considered by the Mutation Officer. 11. Mr. R.K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 has apprised this court that, being a bona fide purchaser, the respondent No.8 believed the order of diversion for purchasing a part of the land and thereafter after getting the mutation order and on opening of the separate holding he obtained the permission to construct a residential building thereon and accordingly he has already completed that. Mr. Mr. Singh, learned counsel has therefore urges this court that all the circumstances require to be revisited by the competent authority for granting her due permission for diversion with retrospective operation so that the investment which has been made from her hard savings are not wasted by operation of the order of the DCM, Sadar whereby it has been directed that the entire water body has to be restored to its earlier position. In the counter-affidavit filed on 06.08.2013 by the respondents No.1 and 2, one very important observation has been made, which reads as under : “This part, in context of the permission for diversion later accorded by the then SDM Sadar to three of the purchasers of the land, namely Smt. Esma Debbarma, Sri Siddhartha Debbarma and Sri Girendra Debbarma clarification has recently been obtained as to whether the SDM Sadar enjoyed concurrent powers along with the DCM Sadar to approve diversion of land u/s 20 of TLR & LR Act, 1960. Accordingly, the Addl. DM Collector, West Tripura vide his letter No.F.17(5)/DM/W/REV/U.S.20/2010/7014 dated 12.11.2012, except a Dy. Collector & Magistrate, no power has been conferred on any other Revenue Authority to order any diversion of land.” 12. In the entire counter-affidavit even there is no whisper even, what action in view of the said decision has been taken as consequence, whether the order of diversions as issued in favour of the three individuals were recalled or cancelled. Even Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate could not apprise this court whether any consequential action has been taken. In the additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 on 29.04.2016, in terms of the order dated 02.03.2016 of this court, there is no reference to that aspect of the matter. Even in the additional counter-affidavit filed by on 05.08.2016, the respondents No.1 and 2, as it appears, preferred not to make any statement on that aspect. 13. After going through the entire records, it appears to this court that the action of the SDM, Sadar was entirely unauthorised and, as such, the order passed granting the diversion in favour of those three individual purchasers, namely Smt. Esma Debarma, Sri Siddhartha Debbarma and Sri Girendra Debbarma, shall be recalled within a period of 45 (Fourty Five) days from today. Despite the appeal being rejected against the order passed by the DCM, Sadar, the Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala, the Collector shall make a fresh inquiry into the matter giving opportunities to the individual purchasers including the respondent No.4 and pass the order as deem fit in the circumstances. There shall not be any discrimination amongst the individual purchasers. They all should be treated equally. Above all, the very object of Section 20 of the TLR & LR Act shall have to be advanced by the Collector, West Tripura District. Such order shall be passed within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala. The petitioner are directed to furnish such copy within 3 (three) days from the day of delivery of the copy by the Registry of this court. It is made clear that if the petitioners failed to place the copy of this order as per stipulation, the Collector, West Tripura, Agartala shall be at liberty to decide the dispute without such compliance. The order of the DCM, Sadar dated 10.06.2008 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the decision of the Collector, West Tripura District. The Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala shall also afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, even though they may appear strangers to the main dispute. 14. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.