Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 225 (TRI)

Tufani Ram Bin v. State of Tripura

2022-05-10

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. K Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of eviction dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also urged this court to stay the operation of the order dated 05.05.2022 till disposal of the second appeal which was filed on 10.02.2022 (Anenxure-7 to the writ petition). The said appeal was filed before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura, the respondent No.2 herein. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 5 instituted a proceeding against the petitioner and other occupiers of his land which, according to the respondent No. 5 is illegal in view of Section 187(1) of the TLR & LR Act. The respondent No.5 filed one petition under Section 187(3) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and the said petition was dismissed by the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura by his order dated 14.09.2011 in case No. 1/R/06. It was observed that there is no evidence to show that the recorded owner was dispossessed by Kedar Bin and Madanlal Bin. The said order dated 14.09.2011 was appealed against at the instance of Tufani Ram Bin, one of the possessors of the said land recorded in khatian No. 399 and 400. After the revisional survey operation was complete, it was noticed that the plots No. 12316/P and 2318 in the old khatian No. 399 and 400 which were recorded in the name of the petitioner had been recorded wrongly in the name of the respondent No.5 in Khatian No. 1645/1. 4. According to the petitioner, he was possessing the land by way of inheritance. A physical field inquiry was made in connection with the said revenue case No. 36/2008 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. From the report as submitted by the SDM, Sadar, it transpired that an area of 0.27 acres of land is in physical possession of the petitioner since long which has been recorded wrongly in the Hal khatian published after the revisional survey in the name of the respondent No.5 and others. 5. From the report as submitted by the SDM, Sadar, it transpired that an area of 0.27 acres of land is in physical possession of the petitioner since long which has been recorded wrongly in the Hal khatian published after the revisional survey in the name of the respondent No.5 and others. 5. As the observation in the report was very clear, in terms of the report of the SDM, khatian was corrected. In the khatian No. 1645/1, CS plot No. 2316/P, RS plot No. 2822/P having area of 1.10 acre is recorded and in the khatian No. 1645/2 and CS plot No. 2316/P, RS Plot No. 2823 having an area of 0.24 acres has been recorded whereas in the khatain No. 1645/1, CS plot No. 2318, RS Plot No. 2828 having an area of 0.03 acres has been recorded. Thus, total area of 0.27 acres has been ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. 6. Against that order as passed in revenue case No. 36/2008, the review was preferred under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act by the respondent No. 5. It has been observed in the review that the land was under peaceful possession of the writ petitioner, namely, Tufani Ram Bin. Having observed thus, the review under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act has been dismissed. 7. It appears further that the respondent No.5 herein filed an appeal under Section 93(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 being Revenue Case No. 137/12. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has no knowledge about the institution of the said appeal and he had been provided with no opportunity to appear before the court but by the judgment dated 20.07.2012, the decision as passed by the revisional authority in a proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act has been revised by setting aside the order dated 14.09.2011 as passed in Restoration case No. 1/R/06 under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act. Categorically it has been directed that the proceeding land measuring 0.14 acre under Hal plot No. 2822 & 2824 recorded in Khatian No. 1645 under Mouja Barjala shall be restored to the respondent No.5 [the petitioner in the proceeding being Case No. 1/R/06]. Categorically it has been directed that the proceeding land measuring 0.14 acre under Hal plot No. 2822 & 2824 recorded in Khatian No. 1645 under Mouja Barjala shall be restored to the respondent No.5 [the petitioner in the proceeding being Case No. 1/R/06]. The SDM, Sadar has been directed to take necessary action in this regard as per procedure of law. 9. In this regard, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has seriously contested the statement of no knowledge of the proceeding and has further drawn the attention of the court that the certified copy of the order dated 20.07.2012 was obtained on 17.08.2020 from the office of the Revenue Inspector, Revenue Court No. 7, Agartala, West Tripura. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA they had knowledge about the proceeding or the judgment from 17.08.2020. The petitioner has filed the second appeal under Section 93(2) (b) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala on 10.02.2022 almost after two years. 10. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has submitted that Prasad Bin was the original owner of the land under dispute but he had transferred about 6 kanis of land to two purchasers one being the predecessor of the respondent No.5 namely, Kamal Prava Debbarman, and according to the respondent No.5 who launched the proceeding under Section 187(3) of the TLR & LR Act contending that the petitioner herein or her predecessor was illegally possessing the land, their predecessor sold out to the predecessor of the respondent No.5. Therefore, the direction is entirely within the precincts of law. 11. This court, at this stage, will not make any comments on the correctness of the orders, at all, as it appears that after about 3432 days the said second appeal has been filed along with an application under Section 94 of the TLR & LR Act for condoning the delay and the said appeal is pending before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura (the respondent No.2 herein). 12. According to the petitioner, no order in the application for condonation of delay or any other order has been passed in the said proceeding. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 has taken all initiatives to evict the petitioner. If the eviction is complete, the purpose of filing the second appeal will be entirely frustrated. 13. Mr. 12. According to the petitioner, no order in the application for condonation of delay or any other order has been passed in the said proceeding. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 has taken all initiatives to evict the petitioner. If the eviction is complete, the purpose of filing the second appeal will be entirely frustrated. 13. Mr. Charkaborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never participated in the proceeding under Section 93 of the TLR & LR Act. This court would like to make it clear that participation shall include the participation of the predecessor-in-interest as well. The participation of the predecessor-in-interest shall also mean the participation by the legal heirs or the present petitioner. 14. However, for substantive ends of justice, this court is of the view that the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura shall first take decision on the application filed under Section 94 of the TLR & LR Act for condoning the delay. Thereafter, he will consider the appeal, depending on the outcome of the proceeding under Section 94 of the TLR & LR Act, and if he finds that the appeal should be heard on merit, he may pass order of stay of the order that has been challenged in the appeal, i.e. order dated 20.07.2012 (Annexure - 6 to the writ petition). 15. It is really unfortunate that the Secretary, Revenue Department has not passed any order, if the statement of Mr. Chakraborty is correct, so far. 16. This court would direct the Secretary, Revenue Department to pass appropriate orders in the manner as indicated above, within a period of seven days from today. 17. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall communicate the extract of the order to the Secretary, Revenue Department even without having a copy of the order formally from this court, so that the proceeding may commence. 18. Meanwhile, the eviction of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) shall not be given effect to. 19. Having considered that the respondent No.5 will not be prejudiced in any manner as this arrangement will survive for a short time, this court has not issued any formal notice, but he will be at liberty to appear before the Secretary, Revenue Department to have his say during hearing on the matter relating to condonation of delay, etc. 19. Having considered that the respondent No.5 will not be prejudiced in any manner as this arrangement will survive for a short time, this court has not issued any formal notice, but he will be at liberty to appear before the Secretary, Revenue Department to have his say during hearing on the matter relating to condonation of delay, etc. A copy of this order, therefore, be transmitted to the respondent No.5 by a messenger from this Court. 20. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 21. There shall be no order as to costs.