Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 152 (TRI)

Arjun Chandra Roy v. State of Tripura

2022-03-24

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this court by way of filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2014, passed by the respondent No. 2 in DM Case No. 32/2012, whereby the land allotted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The petitioners herein have further sought for a direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2014. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: 3.1 The petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 herein are the successors in title of deceased Manoranjan Roy. Manoranjan Roy was allotted government land in the year 1973. The successors in title of deceased Manoranjan Roy filed a Civil Suit bearing No. T.S. 02 of 2013 before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division against the respondents Gopal Roy and others. With respect to the suit land, one Satsang Ashram also seems to be projected its claim and it is revealed that Gopal Roy and 'Satsang Ashram' also have interconnection. Be that as it may, the case of the plaintiff in the said title suit was for restoration of the possession of the suit land which was granted to the plaintiff, Manoranjan Roy, but, later on they were dispossessed. 3.2 The Civil Court by its judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013 held that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants and are also entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into suit land and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. In the operative portion, it was declared that the plaintiffs have the right, title, interest of the suit property and were entitled to retain the possession after recovery thereof. 3.3 The respondent Gopal Roy herein as well as Satsang Ashram committee and others who were the defendants of the said civil suit challenged the judgment of the civil court before the learned District Court, however, the appeal was dismissed on 18.05.2015. 3.3 The respondent Gopal Roy herein as well as Satsang Ashram committee and others who were the defendants of the said civil suit challenged the judgment of the civil court before the learned District Court, however, the appeal was dismissed on 18.05.2015. The defendants thereupon filed Second Appeal 27 of 2015 before this court. Second Appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 04.05.2018 making following observations: '15. Having regard to all these, this court is of the view that the declaration of the title as made by the courts below in terms of the order dated 11.08.2014 delivered in DM Case No. 32/2012 has become contingent upon the outcome of the proceeding as pending for decision. As it has been observed by the competent authority, the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and the Satsanga Ashram is in the possession of the suit land and they have been asked to file proper application for the allotment. The determination of possession is also contingent as there is no evidence by which the observation made in the order dated 11.08.2014 can be rebutted. In the order dated 11.08.2014 it has been clearly held that the physical possession of the suit land was with the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 or their predecessor namely, Manoranjan Roy since 1963. Unless the superior forum interfered with the said observation, it has to be deemed that the defendants were in continuous possession over the suit land since 1963. Unless the superior forum interfered with the said observation, it has to be deemed that the defendants were in continuous possession over the suit land since 1963. Thus the entire gamut of possession would be contingent upon the decision of the superior forum. If the superior courts for any reason declined to interfere with the order dated 11.08.2014, then the judgment and decree as delivered by the first appellate court shall be null and void for all purposes. 16. Having observed thus, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the observation made hereinabove Draw the decree accordingly. It is made clear that the decree will never come into effect unless the proceeding before the superior forum challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 reaches its finality. 16. Having observed thus, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the observation made hereinabove Draw the decree accordingly. It is made clear that the decree will never come into effect unless the proceeding before the superior forum challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 reaches its finality. After preparation of the decree, send down the records.' 3.4 The successors in title of Manoranjan Roy thereafter filed a fresh Title Suit No. 31 of 2013 against the State Government and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, for a declaration that the allotment of the land in favour of their predecessor in title may not be cancelled. Gopal Roy and the 'Satsang Ashram' were not joined as defendants. The suit was disposed of by a judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 in which the Court held that the defendants have no right or jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made in the year 1973 in favour of Manoranjan Roy and they were permanently injuncted from initiating any proceedings of cancellation of allotment against the plaintiffs in respect of such suit land. No appeal was filed by the defendants against this judgment. 3.5 While these proceedings were going on, it appears that the appellant Gopal Roy approached the DM and requested that the allotment in favour of Manoranjan Roy be cancelled. The DM thereupon, after hearing the successor in title of deceased Manoranjan Roy passed an order on 11.08.2014 cancelling the allotment on the ground that the legal heirs of the allottee never occupied or utilized the land in question which violated the terms and conditions of the TLR and LR Act. 3.6 The successors in title of Manoranjan Roy, therefore, filed this writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 370 of 2016 and challenged the said order dated 11.08.2014, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District in DM Case No. 32/2012. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the Civil Court had already decreed the suit declaring the right, title and interest in favour of the petitioners including decree of recovery of possession, perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. In second appeal bearing No. RSA 27/2015, this High Court only held that the decree passed by the Civil Court would depend upon the outcome of the present proceeding. In second appeal bearing No. RSA 27/2015, this High Court only held that the decree passed by the Civil Court would depend upon the outcome of the present proceeding. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that after the decree dated 28.09.2013, passed against the private respondents, they approached the Revenue Court by filing DM Case No. 32/2012 and during the proceeding the decree dated 28.09.2013 was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but, the said decree of the Civil Court was nullified by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of inquiry report of Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, etc. which according to learned counsel was illegal and contrary to settled law. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that the findings of the Civil Court should not be disturbed by the Revenue Court. Continuing his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition submitted by the private respondents before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for cancellation of the allotment order that was issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners in the year 1973 was also hit by the law of limitation. To support his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in WA No. 04 of 2015, titled as Shri Dhaneswar Debbarma v. The State of Tripura & Anr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that after allotment neither the predecessors of the petitioners nor the petitioners had ever possessed the allotted land. More so, the petitioners had failed to prove dispossession by Gopal Roy and Satsang Ashram which is a sine qua non, when an allottee claims that possession was always with him before his dispossession. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that while deciding the appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench had given a finding on limitation in absence of any pleading and argument and hence such expression with regard to limitation being casual carry no weight at all and should not be treated as precedent. Arguing further, Mr. Nama, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the descendants of the allottee only few years back started looking for the allotted land and found that the 'Satsang Ashram and Gopal Roy' were in possession of the allotted land. Arguing further, Mr. Nama, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the descendants of the allottee only few years back started looking for the allotted land and found that the 'Satsang Ashram and Gopal Roy' were in possession of the allotted land. Leading to the present dispute between the parties in the year 2012, according to learned counsel, that situation prompted the private respondent herein Gopal Roy to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of allotment order since said Gopal Roy became aware of the allotment of the land in question only from the writ petitioners for the first time in the year 2012 and as soon as conflict arose between the parties, Gopal Roy instituted the revenue proceeding and therefore, there was no delay in challenging the allotment order. 5.1. Learned counsel for the private respondents tried to persuade this court that in TS 2/2013, the writ petitioners pleaded that since allotment they were in continuous possession and they were dispossessed in the year 2010. Mr. Nama, learned counsel further reiterated that the petitioners failed to prove the fact of dispossession from the disputed land in 2010. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the records. At the outset, I have no hesitation to hold that the Revenue Court has committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 in DM Case No. 32 of 2012 ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court is binding upon the Revenue Court. In other words, the decree passed by the Civil Court will prevail over the findings and order of the Revenue Court. Furthermore, it is transpired that there is no dispute that the land was allotted in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners. I am constrained to observe that if the allotted land was not being possessed by the predecessors of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners, then, it is the incumbent upon the Revenue Authority to initiate appropriate proceeding as provided under the Tripura Land Revenue (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 and Rules 1982 (here-in-after referred to as 'Allotment Rules') to cancel such allotment order and that too should be within a reasonable period of time. 7. 7. In Dhaneswar Debbarma (supra), the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with similar question held thus:- '5. At the outset, we may notice that the land was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner in the year 1988. Assuming that there was any error in the allotment, such allotment should have been challenged within a reasonable time. Allotments cannot be set aside after expiry of reasonable period. What is a reasonable period may depend on the facts of a particular case but normally the reasonable period will not exceed 3 years at the most. It is only in cases where fraud is proved that the period of limitation will start from the date of discovery of the fraud. Otherwise within a reasonable period, proceedings to cancel allotment must start. A person who is allotted land develops the land by dint of his hand work. He invests money and time on the land. After he has developed the land the allotment cannot be set aside after two decades on the ground that the objector had a better claim to the land. 6. The finding of possession recorded by the civil court, in our view, could not be set to be naught by the Revenue Court. To this effect, the learned single Judge is absolutely correct. The civil Court after hearing both the parties has decided the matter. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and after recording evidence, the Civil Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was in possession of the suit land. This decree of the Civil Court has to be challenged by filing an appeal before the District Judge and cannot be nullified by a revenue officer.' 8. From the above principle, I may hold that Revenue court cannot nullify the decree of the Civil Court. Yet another aspect, in the instant case, necessary to be noticed, is that, the revenue authority has not initiated any proceeding for cancellation of the allotment order in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners which was allotted in the year 1973. The proceeding was initiated at the instance of the private respondent No. 3, which is not at all permissible under any circumstances. The proceeding was initiated at the instance of the private respondent No. 3, which is not at all permissible under any circumstances. According to this court, it is only the revenue authority who grants allotment in favour of a particular person is authorized to cancel such allotment order within the ambit as embodied in the 'Allotment Rules' and that too within a period of reasonable time i.e. not beyond three years as held in the case of Dhaneswar Debbarma (supra). 9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid parameters, in the instant case, it is manifest that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, firstly, most illegally nullified the decree passed by the Civil Court wherein the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the land in question were declared by the Civil Court entitling them to recover the suit land by way of evicting Gopal Roy and others in possession of the suit land; secondly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not initiated any proceeding for cancellation of the allotment order issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners in the year 1973 within a reasonable period of time; i.e. within 3(three) years from the date of allotment; and thirdly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed an error of law in entertaining the petition filed by the private respondent (the respondent No. 3) against the petitioners. 10. In light of above, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. 11. The order dated 11.08.2014, passed by the State-respondents in DM Case No. 32 of 2012, cancelling the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners, i.e. the successors in interest of late Manoranjan Roy is hereby quashed and set aside. The allotment of the land in question shall stand restored in favour of the petitioners with immediate effect and consequently, khatian i.e. Record-of-right created in favour of the petitioners as allottee also stands restored. 12. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed.