Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel and Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-4 and Mr. D. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.01.2016, part of Annexure-B to the writ petition and the memorandum dated 04.03.2016, Annexure-C to the writ petition. The controversy hinges on the possession and an order of allotment made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom in favour of the respondent No.5. The land which is in question has been described in the writ petition by providing a schedule which is as follows: “Land measuring 0.06 acres in CS plot No.1568/7842 corresponding to old plot No.2839 classified as viti/tilla under Khatian No.2150 of mouja Bhuratali, Revenue Circle-Sabroom T.K. Bhuratali.” 3. According to the petitioner, despite they were in possession over the said land, the same land has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5 by the allotment order No.3/2012 dated 16.07.2012, Annexure-R/5 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.1-4. The petitioners have categorically asserted that their predecessor namely Hiralal Debnath started possessing the said land and other lands since 1973. The said land which was under possession of the predecessor of the petitioners namely Hiralal Debnath, since deceased, measures 1.23 acre in total. On 21.01.1995, Hiralal Debnath, had received a notice to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with all necessary testimonials for consideration of allotment. But for some reasons, he could not appear on the said date and ultimately he died on 11.01.2007. 4. The respondent No.5 is the daughter of the petitioner No.1. Out of the said land measuring 1.23 acre, 0.06 acre has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5 by the said order dated 16.07.2012. The petitioners raised objection asserting that the respondent No.5 cannot be given the allotment over the said land since the land was under active possession of the petitioners. The said representation dated 25.07.2015 was not, according to the petitioners, considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom in its perspective while passing the order dated 30.01.2016 in case No.249/REV/2015. The petitioners raised objection asserting that the respondent No.5 cannot be given the allotment over the said land since the land was under active possession of the petitioners. The said representation dated 25.07.2015 was not, according to the petitioners, considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom in its perspective while passing the order dated 30.01.2016 in case No.249/REV/2015. Admittedly, when on 30.01.2016 the said order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Civil Suit being T.S. 08/2014 as filed by the respondent No.5 claiming the possession over the said land was pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabroom, South Tripura. In the said suit the respondent No.5 had sought for declaration of her right, title and interest over the said land. 5. Despite those facts categorically being asserted, according to the petitioners, the said order was arbitrarily passed as the District Collector without keeping the proceeding pending for the decision in the civil suit. Even in the order dated 30.01.2016, no reference of the civil suit has been made and hence it has been projected that the objection raised by the petitioners that during pendency of the said civil suit the District Collector should not pass his decision, was not at all considered. Thereafter, the memorandum dated 04.03.2016, Annexure-C to the writ petition, has been passed consequent upon the order dated 30.01.2016 as passed in case No.249/REV/2015. 6. By means of this petition, both the order dated 30.01.2016 and the memorandum dated 04.03.2016 have been challenged. By the memorandum dated 04.03.2016, it has been made known that the petitioner shall be evicted from the suit land within 10(ten) days. 7. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has particularly referred to the final paragraph of the order dated 30.01.2016 where it has been observed as under: “Moreover, the SDM, Sabroom and the OC, Manubazar P.S. are directed to initiate criminal proceedings u/s-107 Cr.P.C. against the 1st parties for creating public nuisance and they should be binded to execute a bond with 2(Two) sureties who will be Govt. Employee with attachment of their land properties. The S.P. South is requested to monitor the case. The SDM, Sabroom is directed to evict the 1st parties and their structures from the schedule plot and cost of eviction to be realized by certificate proceedings against the 1st parties. Employee with attachment of their land properties. The S.P. South is requested to monitor the case. The SDM, Sabroom is directed to evict the 1st parties and their structures from the schedule plot and cost of eviction to be realized by certificate proceedings against the 1st parties. He is also directed to assess the loss incurred by the 2nd party because of the forcible aggression of the 1st parties and if it is justified then the penal cost to be realized from the 1st party by issue of distress warrant under certificate proceedings. Follow up actions to be intimated.” 8. Having referred to that direction, Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that such direction is without jurisdiction is inasmuch as in a proceeding under Section 14(1) of the TLR and LR Act the Collector has not been given any jurisdiction to pass the order in contemplation and to delegate jurisdiction which is not vested with him. 9. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has also appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioners are in possession since long and their predecessor was asked to produce papers for considering allotment. It would be apparent from the notice dated 21.01.1995, Annexure-D to the rejoinder, that the predecessor namely Hiralal Debnath was asked to produce the relevant part of the voter list of 1971, citizenship certificate, ration card and the khatian of the concerned land. The total land as was under possession of the predecessor of the petitioners measures 1.23 acre and out of that, .06 acre has been allotted, which land comprises the main homestead. As a result of which, the petitioners might be ousted from the homestead, despite the fact they were residing there for a long time, since 1973 onwards uninterruptedly. 10. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-4 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure. Moreover, he has categorically stated that no notice for allotment was ever issued to Hiralal Debnath, since deceased. When he was confronted about the notice dated 21.01.1995, Annexure-D to the rejoinder, he has asserted that since that notice was not filed with the writ petition, the respondents have got no opportunity to verify the records whether such notice was at all issued to Hiralal Debnath or not. But Mr. When he was confronted about the notice dated 21.01.1995, Annexure-D to the rejoinder, he has asserted that since that notice was not filed with the writ petition, the respondents have got no opportunity to verify the records whether such notice was at all issued to Hiralal Debnath or not. But Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has candidly submitted that the District Collector, the respondent No.2, in view of the pendency of the civil suit ought not have passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2016. 11. Mr. D. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has submitted that the said title suit has been disposed of on 31.03.2016 where the possession over the said land measuring .06 acre has been declared in favour of the respondent No.5. As such, the contention of the petitioners on the face of such decree cannot be scrutinized as this court would be loath in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the constitution as the civil court has come to a clear finding. By the said decree, the respondent No.5 has been declared to be in the possession over the land as mentioned in the schedule appended to this writ petition. 12. Having due regard to the submission made by the learned counsel, this court is of the view that the impugned order dated 30.01.2016 suffers from serious irregularity as the said order has been passed during pendency of the civil suit concerning the possession of the same land. The District Collector ought to have waited for the outcome of the proceeding pending in the civil court. Moreover, the reproduced part of the said order dated 30.01.2016 has been passed without jurisdiction. The future action, as delineated, has not been contemplated by law. Only after the overt act, the competent authority i.e. the Executive Magistrate may pass such order under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. on having received any report or having gathered the knowledge of such act. The District Collector’s anxiety has culminated in the contemplation of future action. The said order dated 30.01.2016 is therefore set aside. As consequence thereof, the memorandum dated 04.03.2016, Annexure-C to the writ petition, is also quashed. However, the District Collector is at liberty to take the proceeding further on perusing the judgment delivered in T.S. 08/2014, which suit has been disposed on 31.03.2016. The said order dated 30.01.2016 is therefore set aside. As consequence thereof, the memorandum dated 04.03.2016, Annexure-C to the writ petition, is also quashed. However, the District Collector is at liberty to take the proceeding further on perusing the judgment delivered in T.S. 08/2014, which suit has been disposed on 31.03.2016. For that purpose, the District Collector may direct the respondent No.5 herein to produce the said judgment. On affording opportunity of fresh hearing, the District Collector, the respondent No.2 may take his decision as the suit is pending no more. It is made clear that this order shall not create any bar for the petitioners to file any appeal against the said judgment and decree respectively dated 26.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 passed by the said civil suit. The District Collector, the respondent No.2, shall issue a fresh notice to the parties after appointing a date for hearing. 13. Having held so, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.