JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th November 2016 passed in WP(C) Nos.73 and 74 of 2016 respectively. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. [2] Facts being similar, we may record from WP(C) No.73/2016 and corresponding WA No.41/2018. These facts are as under : The litigation pertains to revenue entries in relation to land bearing RS Plot No.3048/2008 [original Plot Nos.2482 and 2488(P)] admeasuring 0.200 acres of Government Khatian No.1/126, mouja Kunjaban (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘suit land’). The petitioner had purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed, dated 20th December 2013, from Sri Rajib Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the vendors’) who claimed their ownership over the land in question as being the predecessors-in-title of deceased Ramabtar Prasad Jadav. According to these vendors, Ramabtar Prasad Jadav had in turn purchased the suit land from one Jagmohan Goala under a registered deed dated 22nd March 1973. The vendors, Sri Rajib Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav had filed Revenue Case No.344/2013 before the District Collector, West Tripura under Section 11(3) of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (“TLR & LR Act” for short). This application of the vendors was suo motu converted by the Collector into proceedings under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act and such proceedings were disposed of by the Collector by an order dated 10th July 2013. In these proceedings, the vendors had produced a copy of the decree of a Civil Court in Case No. 93 T.S of 1973 which was instituted by one Shantimoy Chakraborty against Ramabtar Prasad Jadav seeking injunction against the defendant from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit land by the defendant. The vendors had pointed out that the Civil Court had dismissed the suit by a judgment and decree dated 12th June 1976 holding that the suit land was not Government khas land but was private land. [3] The Collector, West Tripura, disposed of the said proceedings instituted by the vendors by an order dated 10th July, 2013. The Collector was principally guided by the decree of Civil Court in case of Shantimoy Chakraborty(supra). [3] The Collector, West Tripura, disposed of the said proceedings instituted by the vendors by an order dated 10th July, 2013. The Collector was principally guided by the decree of Civil Court in case of Shantimoy Chakraborty(supra). He noticed that in the suit, one of the issues raised was whether the suit land is Government Khas land by acquisition or covered by Kabala of the defendant dated 22nd March 1973. The Collector noted that the said issue was decided against the plaintiff holding that the land did not belong to the Education Department but was part of the Kabala of the defendant dated 22nd March 1973. The Collector thereupon passed the following order : “ …………………. I agree with the verdict & decree of Civil Court in favour of the Defendant i.e. the Lt. Ram Abatar Prasad Jadav father of the petitioners. As the Civil Court has decided that the Sabek Plot No.2482 & 2488 and corresponding to R.S. Plot No.3048 is purchased jote land of Ram Avtar Prasad Jadab of mouja Kunjaban record should be corrected accordingly and not necessary for further field enquiry and also hearing. Hence it is ordered that :-R.S.Plot No.3048 (Sabek plot No.2482.2488(P)) land measuring 0.200 acre from the Govt. Khas Khatian No.1/126 will be recorded in favour of Shri Rajeeb Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav in a new jote Khatian in equal share of mouja Kunjaban, Sadar, West Tripura. Let a copy be sent to SDM Sadar for incorporation in the ROR.” [4] A public interest petition [WP(C)(PIL) No.15/2014] was instituted before the High Court concerning encroachments around water bodies situated in Agartala which the State was not showing seriousness in removing. The High Court had given directions to the State-authorities and authorities of Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) in the said PIL for removal of encroachments. The suit land was also situated in the periphery of a water body. It appears that the AMC had thereupon made inquiries with respect to the title of the land and the authorization of the existing structure on the suit land. This led to the Commissioner of AMC pointing out to the District Collector, West Tripura that the suit land is a Government khas land and appears to have been wrongly recorded as private land and there appears to be error in the District Collector passing the order dated 10th July 2013. This led to the Commissioner of AMC pointing out to the District Collector, West Tripura that the suit land is a Government khas land and appears to have been wrongly recorded as private land and there appears to be error in the District Collector passing the order dated 10th July 2013. The District Collector, West Tripura thereupon instituted a Revenue Case No.321/2015 in exercise of powers under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act of reviewing the order dated 10th July 2013 passed by his predecessor. After issuing notice and hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner, he passed an order, dated 19th December 2015, in which he observed that the proceedings instituted by the vendors under Section 11(3) of TLR & LR Act were suo motu converted by the Collector under Section 95 of the Act. The decree passed by the Civil Court which was heavily relied upon in order dated 10th July 2013 was without hearing the Government. Even the proceedings under Section 95 were disposed of without a notice to the Government. He noted that all along the land was shown as Government khas land in the revenue records. After settlement of the revenue records, for over 40 years no one had objected to this. Mere production of sale deeds would not establish right, title and interest of the parties. Inter alia on such grounds, in exercise of review powers under the TLR & LR Act, he recalled the order dated 10th July 2013. [5] The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition before the High Court to challenge the said order of the Collector. In the petition, he contended that he had purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed after verifying all facts and details. The vendors had provided him copies of the sale deed of their predecessor. They had also provided a copy of the order, dated 10th July 2013, passed by the Collector making corrections in the revenue records concerning the suit land. He had also perused the decree of the Civil Court, dated 12th June 1976, in Case No.93 Title Suit of 1973 in which it was declared that the suit land was not of the ownership of the Education Department but was a private land. He had also perused the decree of the Civil Court, dated 12th June 1976, in Case No.93 Title Suit of 1973 in which it was declared that the suit land was not of the ownership of the Education Department but was a private land. It was contended that the order passed by the Collector, on 10th July 2013, could not have been reviewed under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act in view of such facts. He also pointed out that the Collector, West Tripura at the relevant time was holding an additional charge of the Commissioner, AMC. Thus, the same person in the capacity of the Commissioner of AMC had written to the Collector, West Tripura and taking cognizance of such communication, the Collector, West Tripura had initiated proceedings under Section 96 of TLR & LR Act which resulted into passing of the order by the Collector on 19th December 2015. According to the petitioner, this procedure was in breach of principals of natural justice. He further pointed out that the AMC authorities had demolished the structure standing on the suit land by illegally entering in the land on 22nd January 2016. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the order, dated 19th December 2015, passed the Collector and further prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for illegal demolition of the superstructure. [6] The State Government filed a detailed reply in response to the petition in which it was contended that upon introduction of TLR & LR Act, the suit land was recorded as Government khas land. For over 40 years, no one objected to this settlement of record of rights. Only in the year 2013, the vendors for the first time filed application under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act simply relying on a registered sale deed which would not establish right, title or interest of the suit land. It was pointed out that neither in the civil suit nor in the proceedings before the Collector instituted by the vendors, the Government was a party or given an opportunity of presenting its case. In view of such circumstances, the Collector, West Tripura found sufficient reasons to exercise the powers of review under Section 96 of the Act which was done with previous permission of the Government. In view of such circumstances, the Collector, West Tripura found sufficient reasons to exercise the powers of review under Section 96 of the Act which was done with previous permission of the Government. A copy of a letter, dated 2nd June 2015, from Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura to District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura has been produced. In this letter, it is stated that the Revenue Department has permitted the review of the order passed by his predecessor under Section 96 of TLR & LR Act. [7] AMC had also filed a reply pointing out that AMC had undertaken the task of clearing the encroachments on khas land vested in AMC around Kumaritilla lake. After the Collector passed the order, dated 19th December 2015, as part of drive for removal of unauthorized encroachment the structure on the suit land was also removed. [8] The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment. It was observed that mere production of sale deeds would not establish title to the land. There was no record relating to the title of Jagmohan Goala who had sold the land to the predecessor in title of the vendors. It was noted that before passing the order, dated 10th July 2013, by the Collector under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, no notice was issued to the State Government. The Collector, therefore, had jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Act to review such order. [9] Appearing for the petitioner, learned senior counsel Sri S M Chakraborty raised following contentions : (i) The power of review under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act is limited and cannot be equated with appellate powers. (ii) Before passing the impugned order, the Collector had not taken permission from the Government which was required under the statute. (iii) That the charge of Collector of West Tripura and that of Commissioner, AMC were held by the same person. Thus, the entire issue was reopened at the instance of the Commissioner, AMC and on which the same person in the capacity as Collector, West Tripura, acted. This was in breach of principles of natural justice as the decision of the Collector was bound to be prejudged and biased. Thus, the entire issue was reopened at the instance of the Commissioner, AMC and on which the same person in the capacity as Collector, West Tripura, acted. This was in breach of principles of natural justice as the decision of the Collector was bound to be prejudged and biased. (iv) Counsel lastly contended that the Collector was bound by the decree of the Civil Court in which the Civil Judge had held that the suit land was not of the ownership of Education Department but was a private land. [10] On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the appeal contending that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons. Neither in the proceedings under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act the Collector nor in a civil suit between two private parties the Government was heard. The record of rights upon settlement after introduction of TLR & LR Act showed the suit land as Government khas land for decades together. This position was not challenged by any one. It was much later in the year 2013 that the vendors approached the Collector, West Tripura and urged him to exercise powers under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector could not have converted such petition into one under Section 95 of the Act. The Collector, therefore, was well within his power to review the order passed on 10th July 2013. He lastly contended that the Government permission was duly granted before the order was passed by the Collector exercising such review powers. [11] Learned senior counsel Mr. T.D. Majumder, appearing for AMC, drew our attention to the proceedings of PIL before the High Court in which the Court had urged the authorities to remove illegal encroachments around water bodies. He pointed out that after the record of rights was corrected pursuant to order dated 19th December 2015, the AMC had removed the illegal encroachment on the suit land. [12] We have perused the documents on record. The Collector in his order, dated 10July 2013, providing that the suit land should be recorded in the names of the vendors, had almost entirely relied on the judgment of the Civil Court in case of Shantimoy Chakraborty(supra). He had curiously observed that “I agree with the verdict and decree of Civil Court in favour of the defendant i.e. the Lt. He had curiously observed that “I agree with the verdict and decree of Civil Court in favour of the defendant i.e. the Lt. Ramabtar Prasad Jadav father of the petitioners.” As a revenue authority, either he was bound by the judgment of the Civil Court or for proper reasons, could have come to conclusion that the said judgment does not apply. He did not have a choice of agreeing or disagreeing with the view of the Civil Court. Be that as it may, even in his so-called agreement with the judgment of the Civil Court, he committed two fundamental errors. First was, not to notice that the civil suit before the Civil Court was between two private individuals, the plaintiff Shantimoy Chakraborty and defendant Ramabtar Prasad Jadav. The plaintiff had contended before the Civil Court that the defendant was obstructing his use and possession of the suit land which the Civil Court should prevent. In the process, of course the Civil Court had, in our view, erroneously framed an additional issue namely, whether the suit land is Government khas land by acquisition or was covered by the sale deed of the defendant. The Civil Court did decide this issue in favour of the defendant and thereby rejected the theory of the plaintiff that the suit land was Government land. However, this finding was recorded without any notice to the Government and, therefore, obviously would not bind the authorities. Intra-party between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant or his successor-in-title may cite this as issue estoppels; when it comes to the Government, no such finding can be cited as to jeopardise its interest. The Collector in his order dated 10th July 1972, therefore, could not have ordered correction of the revenue entries by deleting the name of the Government based on such judgment of the Civil Court. This discussion would be sufficient to turn down the contention of senior counsel Sri Chakraborty that the Collector either at the first instance in the proceedings under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act or in exercise of review powers under Section 96, was bound by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. [13] Far graver and second mistake which the Collector made in his order dated 10th July 2013 was to proceed ex-parte the Government. [13] Far graver and second mistake which the Collector made in his order dated 10th July 2013 was to proceed ex-parte the Government. As noted, the vendors had approached the Collector in an application under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that all lands, public roads, lanes etc., which are not the property of any person, are declared to be the property of the Government. As per sub-section (2) of Section 11, unless expressly provided, in the terms of a grant made by the Government, the right to mines, quarries, minerals etc. shall vest in the Collector. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 reads as under : “(3) Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government, or by any person as against the Government and the claim is disputed, such dispute shall be decided by the Collector whose order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be final. [Provided that, no such disputed claim by any private person, against the Government can be filed, after expiry of five years from the date of final publication of the Records-of-Rights by a Revenue Survey Operation carried out u/s.26 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 or from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later : Provided further that the District Magistrate & Collector may entertain such claim after the expiry of the said period of 5 years, if he is satisfied on the ground, to be recorded in writing that the applicant was prevented under extraordinary circumstances, in preferring such claim in time.]” As per this provision thus, any property or any right over the property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person against the Government and the claim is disputed, such dispute shall be decided by Collector whose decision subject to the provisions of the Act shall be final. Thus the questions of disputes of any property or any right over a property between the private individuals and the Government would be decided under the said provision. Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. Thus the questions of disputes of any property or any right over a property between the private individuals and the Government would be decided under the said provision. Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. The vendors had correctly filed the proceedings under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act since their stand that the suit land was a private land was in conflict with the revenue records till then showing it as Government khas land. In any such proceedings, since there would be a dispute between an individual and the Government, presence of the Government was necessary. The Collector while disposing of such application of the vendors by the order dated 11th July 2013 issued no notice to the Government. [14] We are, however, not convinced by the contention of the respondents that the Collector could not have converted such proceedings into one under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act. Section 95 provides that the State Government and the Collector, at any time, either on his own motion or on an application of any party may call for the records of any proceedings before any Revenue Officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such Revenue Officer and may pass such order as he thinks fit. Under Section 95 of the Act, thus the Collector can act either on an application by a party or also on his own motion. When he, therefore, on an application by the vendors under Section 11(3) of the Act desired to examine the records in the context of the powers under Section 95, he had not exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so. However, the basic character of the application being one under Section 11(3) of the Act could not have been allowed to be lost. Only after deciding the disputes over the property and the rights over the property between the vendors and the Government, he could have proceeded to order of correction of the revenue records in exercise of his powers under Section 95. Only after deciding the disputes over the property and the rights over the property between the vendors and the Government, he could have proceeded to order of correction of the revenue records in exercise of his powers under Section 95. [15] Even if he was acting solely on a converted petition under Section 95 in purported suo motu exercise of his powers, he ought to have realised that essential dispute regarding the suit land is one between the vendors and the Government. He could not have made declarations having adverse effect on the Government’s rights without hearing the Government and taking into consideration the official view point. This error becomes even more glaring when one notices that the suit land was recorded as Government khas land for over 40 years upon first settlement of revenue records after introduction of TLR & LR Act. This position was remained unchallenged for over 40 years till one day the vendors made an application for alteration of this position by making an application in the year 2013. Looked from any angle, the order of the Collector dated 10th July 2013 cannot be approved. [16] Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act vests the Revenue Officers with review powers which as per sub-section (1) of Section 96 can be exercised either on his own motion or on application by an interested party. Proviso to Section 96 however inter alia provides that the Collector before reviewing the order passed by any of his predecessors-in-office shall obtain the permission of the State Government. The scope of the review powers has also been laid down under sub-section (3) of Section 96 which provides that no order shall be reviewed except for the following reasons, namely - (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason. [17] The order passed by the Collector on 10th July 2013 was without hearing the Government, disturbed a longstanding position of revenue record never questioned by any one. These errors were apparent on the face of the record and the said order was thus open to review. [17] The order passed by the Collector on 10th July 2013 was without hearing the Government, disturbed a longstanding position of revenue record never questioned by any one. These errors were apparent on the face of the record and the said order was thus open to review. Even the simple fact of the Government interest being jeopardised without a notice to the Government was sufficient for the subsequent Collector to exercise his review powers, only limitation in exercise of such power was that since he was seeking to review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office, he must have the permission of the Government to do so. In the present case, the respondents have produced a copy of the letter dated 2nd June 2015 from the Deputy Secretary to the District Collector conveying that such permission has been granted by the Revenue Department. We fail to appreciate the argument of Mr. Chakraboty in this respect. If his ground was that the Deputy Collector could not have given such permission, it ignores the fact that the document dated 2June 2015 is only a communication of the permission granted by the Revenue Department. If his argument, on the other hand, was that the Revenue Department was not competent, again we fail to appreciate this contention since under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 96, it is the State Government which has to give permission. The State Government acts through various Ministries and the executive powers of these ministers are vested in the concerned Secretaries. When the Revenue Department thus granted the permission, it was by and on behalf of the State Government. [18] The last contention that needs to be dealt with is of the Collector acting in dual capacity, as the Commissioner of AMC and Collector of West Tripura. Again, we see no element of bias or prejudice in this regard. Acting under the directives issued by the High Court in a PIL for removal of encroachments around water bodies, the AMC notified to the Collector regarding the status of the suit land. The Commissioner of AMC had no further powers under the TLR & LR Act. It was in capacity of Collector, West Tripura that the proceedings under Section 96 were instituted. By merely bringing certain facts to the notice of the Collector, the Commissioner had only triggered the initiation of the proceedings under Section 96 by the Collector. The Commissioner of AMC had no further powers under the TLR & LR Act. It was in capacity of Collector, West Tripura that the proceedings under Section 96 were instituted. By merely bringing certain facts to the notice of the Collector, the Commissioner had only triggered the initiation of the proceedings under Section 96 by the Collector. Mere act of the Commissioner, AMC of bringing certain relevant facts to the notice of the Collector would not cast any shadow on the proceedings that would be undertaken and the final order that may be passed after full hearing of all parties as was done in the present case. Had there been any possibility of bias, the question of appointing an ad-hoc competent authority to exercise the power of Collector, West Tripura, under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act by the Government would have arisen but not in the present case. The learned Single Judge correctly found no merit in the petitions since the Collector, West Tripura, had rightly exercised powers under Section 96 of the Act and reviewed the order passed by his predecessor. In the result, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.