JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2016, delivered in case No.13/Appeal/Rev/Secy/2015 under Section 93(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, the petitioner namely Sri Sudhan Chandra Paul has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India urging this Court to direct the revenue authorities to recall their said orders and pass the appropriate order for opening the fresh record of rights(khatian) recording his land in terms of the sale deed no.1-9108(Annexure-1 to this petition). 3. From a reading of that sale deed, it would appear that the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 7 ganda and 2 kara from the plot no.8557 pertaining to khatian no.6491 on payment of the consideration from one Sri Upendra Chandra Das. The petitioner has further asserted that not only the petitioner, his two brothers purchased some land from the same vendor and from the same plot on payment of consideration. When the petitioner and his two brothers applied for mutation of the record and opening the new khatian in terms of the sale deed, the revenue authorities opened the khatian no.9685 jointly in the name of the brothers for a land measuring 0.112 acre in contravention of the statutory provision[see Section 46 of the TLR & LR Act). 4. According to Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said land is also short by 0.038 acre in terms of the sale deed as stated. The petitioner had without delay filed a petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act for correcting the said record. 5. 4. According to Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said land is also short by 0.038 acre in terms of the sale deed as stated. The petitioner had without delay filed a petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act for correcting the said record. 5. After hearing the said petition, the Settlement Officer, West Tripura, Agartala by the order dated 31.10.2014 on purported basis of the second field inquiry report has observed as under: “Also expatiate in the field report that, during the field inquiry has given strong objection & obstruction form field inquiry work by Sri Manik Das S/o Haripada Das & he claim the question land of the applicant is in possession by him, though the question land is vacant land at present & as per statement of neighbor Smt. Anjali Sen Chowdhury W/o Mihir Sen Chowdhury & Sri Bidhubhusan Sarkar S/o Radhacharan Sarkar earlier it was vacant land. From the above fact it is clear that, 1st & 2nd enquiry time the applicant failed to show his claim land peacefully.” 6. This Court could not make out head or tail out of this order and for that obvious reason, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 93(1) of the TLR & LR Act for mutating the record of rights showing the appropriate land in terms of the sale deed. 7. After hearing, by the impugned order dated 18.06.2016(Annexure-7 to this petition) the Secretary, Revenue Department after observing the relevant fact has returned the finding as under: “1. Appellant & respondent’s names were recorded jointly in sabek khatian No.9685. The respondents No.1 & 2 sold out their entire shares of land to other parties prior to revisional survey operation and the purchasers have got mutation accordingly. But names of the respondents have not been deleted from the khatian No.9043/12 during incorporation in revisional survey operation, which is not correct. 2. It reveals that during revisional survey, the names of other co-sharers Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul have been wrongly recorded jointly in the khatian though both of them sold their respective shares. Both Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul appeared before this court and also admitted this fact. 3. 2. It reveals that during revisional survey, the names of other co-sharers Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul have been wrongly recorded jointly in the khatian though both of them sold their respective shares. Both Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul appeared before this court and also admitted this fact. 3. The claim of 100% share in khatian No.9043/12 in favour of the appellant is found to be correct & justified as the others co-sharers had sold out their entire purchased land to different persons who in turn have also got mutation from old khatian No.9685(resulting in new khatian no.9043/12) during revisional survey operation. Now, the appellant has been possessing the suit land physically. 4. The order of the Settlement Officer (*Ld. Collector),West dated 31.10.2014 is found to be not correct as the respondents sold out their entire land to other parties prior to revisional survey. [*The Collector did not pass the order. The order was passed by the Settlement Officer] 5. The question of increase of total area to 0.150 acre instead of 0.112 acre in favour of the appellant by including R.S. plot No.30169 does not arise as possession of the appellant on that land has not been established.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. On the premises of the observation as aforesaid the order has been passed and that order is under challenge in this petition. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that regarding the findings in paras 1, 2, 3 and 4, the petitioner does not have any grievance. The petitioner’s grievance is confined to the finding as returned by the revisional authority (the State government) in para.5, based on which the order has been passed to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to get the additional amount of land which is sought for, in terms of the land as described in the title deed. The said finding is wholly erroneous and not supported by any provision of law. Whether the petitioner is in possession or not, it is a subsidiary fact but so far the column for the recording the name of the holder of the title(rayat) is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to get his name recorded for the entire land as described in the said title sale deed. By passing this order, virtually the revisional authority has denied the valid title which transferred to the petitioner by the said sale deed. 10. By passing this order, virtually the revisional authority has denied the valid title which transferred to the petitioner by the said sale deed. 10. From the other side, Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 has submitted that the petitioner has failed to identify his own land during the field survey. The land the plaintiff is claiming is under the possession of the respondents No.4 and 5 and as such, the petitioner cannot have any claim over the said land and his name cannot be recorded in the record of rights as he is not in possession. Record of rights is an instrument of possession only. 11. Since the substantive part of the dispute has been resolved by the impugned order, so far the remaining question is concerned, this Court is of the view that a wholly wrong approach has been adopted by the revenue authorities. First, the title deed was to be examined for purpose of finding out that (i) whether there is a physical existence of the land that has been transferred by specific description with reference to the surveyed plot no., by the title deed (ii) if the title deed physically existed on record it was duty cast upon to find out whether the transferor had the competence to transfer the land, and if so, there would have been no alternative but to record the name of the transferee. These are the basic and fundamental duties while recording the right of the holder of the title(rayat) in the record of rights(khatian). Thereafter, on physical field survey it has to be determined whether the predecessor had in the possession when the possession was handed over the entire land that was transferred or not. If it is found that the entire land was under the possession of the predecessor, then there cannot be any difficulty but to simply record the possession in the same way as the possessor was maintaining the possession with the entries and acknowledgments as stood/recorded in the record of rights. If it is found that the entire land was under the possession of the predecessor, then there cannot be any difficulty but to simply record the possession in the same way as the possessor was maintaining the possession with the entries and acknowledgments as stood/recorded in the record of rights. But in any case it is found that any part of the said land was not under the possession of the predecessor, but he has transferred the entire land including which was not under his possession in favour of the transferee, then after recording the name of the transferee in the column for the holder of the title(rayat) that portion of the land may be recorded in the specified column, showing that the holder of the title was not in possession. In the present case, the revisional authority has not adopted a correct approach. The approach that was taken by the revenue authorities was entirely erroneous. 12. Having observed thus, the revenue authorities particularly, the District Collector, West Tripura District is directed to cause a fresh field inquiry after giving notice to all concerned or the stakeholders and on the basis of that, the fresh khatian in terms of this order read with the order dated 18.06.2016 passed by the revisional authority be opened. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. It is clearly observed that the part of the order dated 18.06.2016 which has been challenged stands set aside. 13. As corollary thereof, the petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost.