Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 74 (TRI)

Narayan Ch. Das v. State of Tripura

2018-03-14

S.TALAPATRA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. These petitions, being Review Pet. No.39 of 2017 and Review Pet. No. 41 of 2017, are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment as both the petitioners have taken the common grounds seeking review of the order of this court dated 08.03.2017 delivered in W.P.(C) No.230 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.232 of 2017. 2. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioners by suppressing the fact that the Revenue Cases No.13 of 2014 and No.14 of 2014 under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 were dropped by the order dated 06.12.2014 meaning when the impugned orders were passed there was no existence of the said proceedings. According to him, the petitioners were aware of the said order dated 06.12.2014 as it has been reflected in the said order dated 06.12.2014 itself that Smt. Namita Munda and others were represented by their attorney Smt. Anjali Ghosh. 3. From the other side, Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents has submitted that no such order on 06.12.2014 was passed in presence of the writ petitioners or their attorney. That order dated 06.12.2014 had been passed without their knowledge, if at all such order was passed. 4. The records of those revenue cases have been filed by the District Collector directly on 03.11.2017. It appeared therefrom that the Revenue Case No.14 of 2014 was taken up by the National Lok Adalat, West Tripura, Agartala on 06.12.2014 and for want of so called proper power of attorney and the survival certificate, National Lok Adalat dropped the case. On the same date i.e. 06.12.2014 the District Collector passed the following order in Revenue Case No.14 of 2014: “Today date is fixed for hearing. Smt. Anjali Ghosh for applicant Smt. Namita Munda & Others and Op are present and heard. Field inquiry report is also received from concerned DCM and kept with record. The representative Smt. Anjali Ghosh submitted General Power of Attorney through Notarial Certificate which executed by Smt. Namita Munda & others, they are legal survivor of Lt. Bapu Ram Munda S/o Lt. Chramany Munda and Lt. Mano Ranjan Munda S/o Lt. Chura Mani Munda issued by the SDM Mohanpur but the suit land is still recorded in the name of Ganga Charan Munda S/o Murgi Munda of mouja Fatikcherra. Bapu Ram Munda S/o Lt. Chramany Munda and Lt. Mano Ranjan Munda S/o Lt. Chura Mani Munda issued by the SDM Mohanpur but the suit land is still recorded in the name of Ganga Charan Munda S/o Murgi Munda of mouja Fatikcherra. On scrutiny of the submitted record it is found that the Survival Certificate of Lt. Ganga Charan Munda S/o Murgi Munda not has been submitted by the petitioner and also the representative failed to produce during hearing, which is vital document of case and also there is no mentioned who is the original legal inheritor leaving behind after death of owner of land Sri. Ganga Charan Munda S/o Murgi Munda. Made the Power of Attorney through Notarial Certificate is not accepted. Hence, the case is hereby dropped with an advice to make Register General power of Attorney through Sub Register and Survival Certificate of Lt. Ganga Charan Munda accordingly.” 5. A reading of the said order dated 06.12.2014 would show that on the similar ground the District Collector had dropped the case. It is not discernible, inasmuch as there is no reflection of the order of the National Lok Adalat in the order dated 06.12.2014 as passed by the District Collector, West Tripura. There is no answer on query how on the same date, the same records could be before the two different courts. So far the Revenue Case No.13 of 2014 is concerned, replica of the order was passed by the Collector on 06.12.2014 by dropping the said proceeding for want of the proper power of attorney and the survival certificate of Ganga Charan Munda, since deceased. 6. In Revenue Case No.13 of 2014 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act as well, on the same date i.e. 06.12.2014, National Lok Adalat, West Tripura, Agartala had taken up the matter. A strong doubt thus travelled through the mind of this court how the case records were available before two forums on the same date, inasmuch as there is no reflection in the order dated 06.12.2014 as passed by the District Collector. However, it transpires that the cases were taken up by the National Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014. A strong doubt thus travelled through the mind of this court how the case records were available before two forums on the same date, inasmuch as there is no reflection in the order dated 06.12.2014 as passed by the District Collector. However, it transpires that the cases were taken up by the National Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014. On scrutiny of the records as produced relating to Revenue Case No.13 of 2014 and Revenue Case No.14 of 2014, this court does not find any memo of appearance by the parties on 06.12.2014 before the District Collector though on all other days, when the proceeding was fixed, the parties registered their appearance by filing the memo of appearance. 7. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner however has submitted that the impugned order had been passed in absence of the review petitioners. For the order dated 08.03.2017, the review petitioners have been seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as the dropped revenue cases have been resurrected by the said impugned order and that could not have happened if the writ petitioners did not suppress the material fact. 8. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents, having drawn the attention of this court to the affidavit filed by the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners did never know the existence of the order dated 06.12.2014 as passed by the District Collector. Thus he has warded off the allegation, as raised by Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel. Without entering in the web of the whole controversy, this court is inclined to recall the said order dated 08.03.2017, inasmuch as, in their absence, the said order dated 08.03.2017 was passed, not on merit. The review petitioners have brought on records the order dated 06.12.2014 whereby those revenue cases were dropped giving rise to the advantage in favour of the review petitioners. As consequence, the orders dated 08.03.2017 are recalled and both the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.230 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.232 of 2017 are restituted. However, the materials those surfaced from the records would be taken care of by this court in the writ petitions, because the manner in which the records were maintained gives rise to the grave suspicion. The records as produced be kept with the records of W.P.(C) No.230 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.232 of 2017 under sealed covers. Accordingly, these review petitions stand allowed.