JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, but none appears for the respondent No.4. 2. On 16.12.2015, notice was issued on the respondent No.4. It appears from the note of the Registry dated 15.02.2016, that the acknowledgement card has not been received by the Registry till this day. As such, this court deems service on the respondent No.4 in view of the provisions of Order V Rule 9(5) of the CPC. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2012, delivered in Case No. 617 /2012 by the settlement officer, West Tripura, Agartala in a proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act whereby it has been ordered that the road on the land measuring 0.290 acre comprised in the new plots No. 18839 and 18802, corresponding to C.S. plots No. 1200 and 1201 recorded in the khatian No. 4910 of mouza Jogendranagar shall be drawn in the map relating to 'Khash khatian' after allotting a separate plot no. under mouza Jogendranagar. The respondent No.3 herein filed a petition before the settlement officer, West Tripura, Agartala claiming that he is the owner of the said land under mouza Jogendranagar and the said road existed since long. But the road has not been drawn in the settlement map. Since the road is not drawn in the map, the writ petitioners and others are creating obstructions in using the said road. The writ petitioner raised serious objection against the petition filed by the respondent No.3 before the settlement officer asserting that he purchased pieces of land measuring 0.20 acre and 0.27 acre by two separate registered sale deeds being No. 14000 dated 10.08.1994 and No. 15510 dated 12.09.1997 from one Prafulla Biswas, the respondent No.4 herein. Only 0.41 acre of land has been recorded in the khatian No. 8259. According to the writ petitioner, the said road exists on his purchased land and it is not a government road but a personal road. Only 0.41 acre of land has been recorded in the khatian No. 8259. According to the writ petitioner, the said road exists on his purchased land and it is not a government road but a personal road. But the respondent No.4 herein (the OP No.1 in the proceeding under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960) denied that claim and asserted that the road existed since long and the AMC authority has converted the road into a bricksoling road. 4. The Settlement Officer on the purported scrutiny of the schedule of the purchased land, as recorded in the Registered sale deed No. 15510 dated 12.09.1997, has observed as under : "the Northeast boundary of his purchased land was road i.e. the road in question was not the purchased land of the OP No.3. It also appears that the local people spared land for the road since long ago but it was not drawn in the map." 5. The settlement officer deputed one Amin for physically surveying the land in question and to make report. From the records produced by the respondent No.2, it appears that the Amin so deputed by the settlement officer, after field inquiry submitted his report on 10.12.2012 and he has observed that on the new plots viz. 18830/21315, 18829, 18833, 1318837, 18838, 18839, there exists a road and according to the Amin so deputed by the settlement officer, the said road is comprised of various pieces of jote (private) land and shown in the plot no. 18833/A, which has been shown in the annexed map. From the khatian No. 8259 of mouja Jogendranagar which has been mutated in the name of the writ petitioner, it appears that the writ petitioner is the holder of title in respect of new plot No. 18837 [corresponding to old plot no. 1195] and new plot no. 18838 and [corresponding to old plot no. 1196]. 6. From the Amin's report it appears that the road exists on both the plot nos. 18837 and 18838, meaning the Amin's report supports the contention of the writ petition. Even though, the settlement officer has scrutinized the sale deed no. 5510 dated 12.09.1997 but from the schedule of the said sale deed it appears that the old plot no. 1195 corresponding to the new plot no. 18837, is part of the land purchased by the said sale deed. Even though, the settlement officer has scrutinized the sale deed no. 5510 dated 12.09.1997 but from the schedule of the said sale deed it appears that the old plot no. 1195 corresponding to the new plot no. 18837, is part of the land purchased by the said sale deed. Similarly, from the sale deed no. 14000 it appears that the old plot no. 1195(part) corresponding to the new plot no. 18837(part) and old plot No. 1196 corresponding to new plot No. 18838 were purchased by the said sale deed dated 10.08.1994 . From the boundary of the purchased land vide the sale deed no. 15510 dated 12.09.1974, it appears that the north and east of the land is bounded by a passage (path). But in the sale deed dated 10.08.1994 there is no such path. From the map prepared by the amin it appears that none of the plots referred in the khatian no. 8259 or in the sale deed dated 10.08.1994 or in the sale deed dated 12.09.1997 has been shown as the adjoining plot in the said map drawn by the Amin. 7. Apparently, what appears that in the boundary on north and east as shown in the schedule of the purchased land vide the sale deed dated 12.08.1997 there exists a passage but in the map, the dag nos. as have been pointed are not resembling with the old dag nos. as referred in those two sale deeds. 8. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the road exists on some parts of the jote land of the petitioner and that is exclusively used by him after purchase. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s jote land has been converted into a Government khash land without following the due process of law. In reply, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has stated that : "The petitioner purchased land measuring 0.20 acres and 0.27 acres by two registered sale deed No. 14000 dated 10/08/1994 and deed No. 15510 dated 12.09.1997, executed by one Prafulya Biswas (Respondent No.4 of the writ petition) in mouja Jogendranagar. I state that one Sri Jantu Chandra Nag (Respondent No.3 of the Writ petition) preferred a revision case u/s 95 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 before the Respondent No.2 being No. 617/12. I state that one Sri Jantu Chandra Nag (Respondent No.3 of the Writ petition) preferred a revision case u/s 95 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 before the Respondent No.2 being No. 617/12. According to his plaint there exists a road up to his land since long ago but due to the obstruction of the Opposite Parties he faced inconvenience in using the road. After hearing the case the Respondent No.2 had passed final order on 13/3/2013. It is evident that the matter was inquired and after verification of all relevant documents the Order was passed. It appears that the road was not drawn in the map during the revisional survey. In the trace map the road has been shown and marked as Plot No. 18833 measuring 0.120 acres. " 9. The respondent by filing the reply has simply replicated the reasons as assigned in the impugned order dated 13.03.2013 by the respondent No.2. 10. From the report of the Amin, as deputed by the Settlement Officer, it has clearly surfaced that the concerned road exists on the private jote land. Unless those pieces of jote land are surrendered in favour of the government or any local body, the said road, the land on which the said road exist can not be declared as khash nor can it be shown on the map as the government road. The Settlement Officer having no such power and without making appropriate inquiry into these aspects has observed as under : "In view of the above it is ordered that the road in question shall be drawn in the map as shown in the trace map as hal plot 18833/A measuring 0.120 acre and shall be recorded in Khas Khatian after allotting a plot number under mouza Jogendranagar. All relevant records shall also be corrected accordingly." The said order is absolutely illegal and in contrast to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Settlement Officer or the District Collector does not have any power to convert a jote land into a khash land unless those lands are acquired or declared excess to the limit or those are alluvial in nature etc. it is the position of fact as revealed in the proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 that the land attracted by the said road is jote land. However, the entire land does not belong to the petitioner. it is the position of fact as revealed in the proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 that the land attracted by the said road is jote land. However, the entire land does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a substantial part of it being the land he purchased. Hence, by the said order he has been seriously prejudiced. 11. Having regard to this all aspects, this court is persuaded to hold that the impugned order dated 13.03.2013 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, this same is set aside. However, the liberty would be reserved to the District Collector to make a fresh inquiry and if it is found that the road under exists on the jote land, then he may further inquire whether the owners reference had ever surrendered that road for formation of the road or causing bricksoling thereon. He may also inquire into whether in any form, possession of the road was surrendered by the owners on executing deed or not. On such survey, he may take a fresh decision affording opportunity of hearing to the land owners. In the result this writ petition stands allowed, subject to what has observed above. There shall be no order as to costs. Return the records produced by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A.