JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel and Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. This court is faced with a strange situation as the petitioners who executed the gift deed No.1-8912 dated 02.11.1999, the gift deed No.1-11315 dated 26.12.2003 and the gift deed No.1-572 dated 17.01.2004 transferring a tract of land in favour of Don Bosco Centre, Bishramganj, the respondent No.3 herein have raised the claim that the said transactions were void inasmuch as those transactions were in violation of Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 [the TLR & LR Act, in short]. 3. Before the gamut of fact is appreciated it would be appropriate to make a cursory glance to Section 187. Sub-section (1) of Section 187 has prohibited transfer of land belonging to a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes and such transfer shall not be valid unless the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes, or where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes, it is made with the previous permission of the Collector in writing in the manner to be prescribed by rule. Exception has been curved out for some legal entities whenever the transfer is by way of mortgage to a Cooperative 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. It has been further provided that the land so mortgaged shall not be transferred by such mortgage to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. 4. It has been further provided that the land so mortgaged shall not be transferred by such mortgage to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. 4. In the present case all the aforesaid transfers have taken place in favour of the respondent No.3 which is admittedly a society registered under the Societies Registration Act inasmuch as in Para-10 of the reply filed by the respondent No.3 it has been averred as under : “It is not disputed that respondent No.3 is an institute run and managed by S.T. Xaviers Bishramganj, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is to be represented by authorized person.” 5. The grievance as unfolded by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they had approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh, now Sepahijala District, who is the designated authority for restoration of the land as purportedly transferred by those gift deeds under Section 187(B) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. Since the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh did not take any action, they had approached the District Collector, now Sepahijala District by filing a petitioner under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act being Revenue Case No.375 of 2009. 6. By the order dated 07.06.2011 [Annexure P/4 to the writ petition], the District Collector in terms of the order dated 09.03.2012 delivered in WP(C) No. 67 of 2011 by the Gauhati High Court which had the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter, the District Collector has observed as under : “Accordingly Law cell of this office sent the Hon’ble High Court dated 09.03.2011 to the SDM Bishalgarh vide No.F.DM(W)/Law Cell/W.P.(C) 67 of 2011/1061-63 dated 18th April 2011 for compliance of the same within a period of 6(six) months positively. SDM Bishalgarh was also requested to furnish a status report about the action taken on the application under section 187(1)(2) & (3) of the TLR & LR Act 1960 of the as party. A copy was also sent to Revenue Court Case Cell for similar action. Accordingly institute a Revenue Case U/S 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. An enquiry report is also received from the SDM Bishalgarh vide No.2665/F.4(42)/SDM/BLG/REV/09 dated 09.03.2011. It appears from the enquiry report that the entire impugned was allottee. The land was mutated in favour of the representative of the Director, Don Bosco Centre. Ld. Accordingly institute a Revenue Case U/S 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. An enquiry report is also received from the SDM Bishalgarh vide No.2665/F.4(42)/SDM/BLG/REV/09 dated 09.03.2011. It appears from the enquiry report that the entire impugned was allottee. The land was mutated in favour of the representative of the Director, Don Bosco Centre. Ld. Advocate for respondent stated that the impugned land was gifted land by the petitioner. However on scrutiny it appears that the petitioner filed her petition U/S 187 of the TLR & LR Act 1960. Her petition was wrongly admitted U/S 95 of the TLR & LR Act 1960. Power of U/S 187 of the TLR & LR Act 1960 is vested to SDMs by the Revenue Department Vide No.F.83(2)/REV/73(S) dated 07.12.2001. It also appears that the matter in between the parties is and are both Tribal so U/S 187 of the TLR & LR Act is also not applicable in the instant petition. Under the above circumstances the petition of Smti. Putul Rani Debbarma filed U/S 187(1)(2) & (3) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 is rejected.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the District Collector dated 09.06.2011, the writ petitioners filed one revisional application before the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Revenue Department. By the order dated 27.07.2013 [Annexure P/5 to the writ petition] the said revision petition has been dismissed as the revisional authority did not find any reasonable ground for interference with the order passed by the District Collector. 8. To question the said order dated 27.07.2013, this petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorari. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sustainable, as decided by this court in Smt. Raj Kumari Goala & Others versus Smti. Sabita Ghosh & Others but this petition from its very nature appears to be a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it has challenged the order of the revenue courts. Merely for citing a wrong provision, the petitioner cannot be thrown out. 9. Having observed as such, this court would proceed to decide the case on merit. Merely for citing a wrong provision, the petitioner cannot be thrown out. 9. Having observed as such, this court would proceed to decide the case on merit. On reading of the petition that was filed by the writ petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura [Annexure P/3] it would appear that the petition was for restoration of possession as the transaction, according to them was entirely invalid for flagrant violation of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. But no cognizance of that petition under Section 187(1) read with Section 187(B) was taken by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh West Tripura now Sepahijala District. Persuaded by the said development, strangely, another petition was filed under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act. By the order dated 07.06.2011, as stated, the said proceeding was terminated holding that there was no violation of Section 187 inasmuch as both the parties [the donar and the donee] were tribal in the said transaction. When the said order dated 07.06.2011 was challenged under Section 93 of the TLR & LR Act the revisional authority also affirmed the said order. Now by this writ petition, the petitioner has raised that when there a breach or violation of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act takes place in a transaction, the said transaction as a whole is void. Under Section 187(b)(1) of the TLR & LR Act, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is under obligation, if it is proved that transaction which had taken place after 01.01.1969 in violation of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act, to restore the possession of the land in favour of the tribal person who approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate being the designated authority for exercising the power under Section 187(b)(2) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 10. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has not exercised that power as vested with him. Even he has refused to take cognizance of such breach as sought to be projected by the petitioner by filing the petition [Annexure P/3 to this writ petition]. Thereafter, the said petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act was filed. That petition on the face of it, was an incompetent petition. 11. In view of that, the order in that proceeding was without jurisdiction and is void. Thereafter, the said petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act was filed. That petition on the face of it, was an incompetent petition. 11. In view of that, the order in that proceeding was without jurisdiction and is void. Even the order passed by the revisional authority cannot be treated lawful. It has been urged by the petitioners before this court that they were ‘induced’ by the respondent No.3 to hand over the land in the form of gift. It is therefore obvious that there was no consideration at all. The respondent No.3 has come in the possession and they are now utilizing the land. They have managed to get the records of right mutated in their favour. 12. While hearing the petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, one report was called from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura, now Sepahijala District. In the report, it had been stated that the transfer was from a tribal to another tribal person and rightly on the basis of the gift deeds as stated, the land had been recorded in favour of the respondent No.3 as during the field enquiry they were found on possession. It has been further observed in the said report that the tribal-writ petitioners were recorded as the allottees over the said land and as such, according to the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate as placed before this court by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A., there was no infirmity, illegality or violation of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. Even the District Collector, who is otherwise the competent person to grant permission for transfer of land from a tribal person to a non-tribal person has observed that the said transaction had taken place between two tribal persons. Such observation has been affirmed by the revisional authority. 13. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that barring the entities curved out in Section 187(1)(c), no other person can be exempted from the rigours of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. However, it has been admitted by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that under Section 187(c), ‘mortgage’ of land is permitted to a Co-operative Society or a bank or to the Tripura Housing Board as well as any other financial institution. 14. Mr. However, it has been admitted by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that under Section 187(c), ‘mortgage’ of land is permitted to a Co-operative Society or a bank or to the Tripura Housing Board as well as any other financial institution. 14. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel in the course of his submission has referred to the provision of Section 187(b)(1) which reads as under : “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.” 15. The procedure that was followed by the respondent No. 2, the District Collector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioners, was grossly erroneous and unsustainable in law. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel while putting the final nail in his submissions has referred to legal meaning of ‘society’ in terms of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, and filing the same with the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies form themselves into a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society is no doubt a body incorporated and it is ordinarily represented by the president, the chairman or the principal secretary or the trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the said society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim, or demand against the society, to sue the president or the chairman, or the principal secretary thereof. 16. Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has clearly dealt with the property of the society which is vested in it. Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim, or demand against the society, to sue the president or the chairman, or the principal secretary thereof. 16. Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has clearly dealt with the property of the society which is vested in it. It provides that the property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society for their proper title in all proceedings, civil or criminal. As such, there is no question to hold that the property if purchased by a society even if being represented by a tribal person can be treated that the transaction was made and received by a tribal person. 17. In this regard, Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that from the composition of the governing body of St. Xaviers it would be apparent that most of the members of the said governing body belong to the tribal community. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has in particular referred to the list of the members of the present governing body [Annexure R/3 to the Additional counter affidavit which was filed 22.06.2000]. Having referred thus, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has stated that since the majority of the members is from the tribal community the society should be treated as having trappings of the tribal society and thus, it should be treated as ‘the tribal entity’ for purpose of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has strenuously argued before this court that the Don Bosco Centre is doing their dedicated work for development of the tribal community and as such, they are also protecting the interest of the tribal community, their work is in line with the fundamental object of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 18. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 has produced the records relating to these proceeding before the District Collector being Revenue case No. 175/09. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has advanced two prong submissions viz. 18. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 has produced the records relating to these proceeding before the District Collector being Revenue case No. 175/09. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has advanced two prong submissions viz. (1) the challenge as thrown by the petitioners by filing a writ petition cannot be sustained inasmuch as the writ petitioners should have approached the civil court for this purpose. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. having referred to the following para from the reply filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 has further stated that there is no breach of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act : “It is pertinent to mention here that it was also observed by the learned District Collector that the subject matter of the case for which the petitioner had sought relief is not related with the Section 187 of the TLR and LR Act, since both the parties concerned of the case were tribal whereas case under Section 187 of the TLR and LR deals with the matter between tribal and non tribal. As such, the learned Collector rejected the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and within the ambit of the TLR and LR Act, 1960.” 19. Less stated is better in this case regarding the role of the respondents No.1 & 2 in interpreting the provisions of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. 20. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties the pertinent questions those require answer from this court are as under : 1. Had the transaction been carried out in violation of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960? 2. Can the Don Bosco Centre be treated as ‘tribal’ for purpose of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 ? and 3. Are the orders passed by the District Collector and the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department are sustainable in law? 21. Let us take the first question first - whether these transaction had been carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 187(1) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. and 3. Are the orders passed by the District Collector and the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department are sustainable in law? 21. Let us take the first question first - whether these transaction had been carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 187(1) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. The answer must be in the negative inasmuch as the society as registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by any stretch of interpretation cannot be treated firstly as individual or collectively as tribal. The entities which are exempted under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act are clearly stipulated. Barring those entities, none else can be permitted to engage themselves in transfer of land from a tribal person by the soute. Even coming in the possession after 01.01.1969 over the land belonging to a tribal person by a non-tribal person or entities shall be grossly illegal. By way of 6th Amendment Act in the TLR & LR Act, 1960 has been made a punishable offence, subject to the notification. In view of this observation, the contention as raised by Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel are reflected in the question No.2 above, shall fall through inasmuch as the “society” in terms of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 holds their movable or immovable property if not in the name of trustees but in the name of the board of governments the governing body, in terms of their own memorandum of association and by laws. No individual is permitted to hold any property by the name of the society. Therefore the said contention is rejected. As regards the final question that whether those orders dated 07.06.2011 passed by the District Collector, West Tripura, Agartala in Revenue Case No.375 of 2009 [Annexure P/4 to the writ petition] and dated 27.07.2013 passed by the Secretary to the Revenue Department in Case No.12/Rev/Revision/Secy/2011 are valid or not, it has to be clearly stated that those were passed wholly on a wrong premise, holding that the transaction was between two tribal individuals. Such observation has emanated from the fact that the society was represented by a tribal person for purpose of accepting the gift. But in the gift deed, the society is the donee. Such observation has emanated from the fact that the society was represented by a tribal person for purpose of accepting the gift. But in the gift deed, the society is the donee. It is unfortunate that senior functionaries of the state administration who are entrusted with the powers to be exercised under the statute are deciding the matters in such a casual manner without applying their mind and having no regard to the provisions of law. Thus both the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011 and 27.07.2013 are set aside and quashed. But the matter would not end here. This court would further direct the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department to remit the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the designated authority, for deciding whether the land in question should be restored or not, in terms of the petition filed by the petitioners [Annexure P/3 to the writ petition] within a time frame what shall be laid by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department. 22. Before parting with the records, it is to be noted that this court would be failing in its duties, if it is not mentioned that any transaction which is carried out in violation of Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act even by the registered instrument as is in the present case by the registered gift deeds, shall be treated as void for all purposes. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Revenue Department, the respondent No.2 herein, for compliance forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Records as produced by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. is returned.