Tripura High Court
Sri Gurudas Choudhury vs The State Of Tripura on 8 April, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P. (C) No.432/2018
Sri Gurudas Choudhury,
S/O.-Late Gopendra Kr. Choudhury, R/O.-Kacharghat, P.O.- Kailashahar,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District-Unakoti Tripura.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State Of Tripura,
Represented by its Secretary Cum Commissioner to the
Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura, P.O.-Kunjaban,
P.S-New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.
2. The Ld. District Collector,
Unokoti District, P.O + P.S-Kailashahar, District-Unakoti Tripura.
3. Ram Thakur Seba Sadan,
Represented By its President, Sri Paritosh Saha, Boulapasha,
P.O + P.S- Kailashahar, District-Unokoti Tripura.
.....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate.
Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.
Mr. T.D. Majumder, Advocate.
Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Date of hearing and judgment : 01/08.04.2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This petition is filed challenging an order dated 01.03.2013 as at
Annexure-15 by which the District Magistrate & Collector, Unakoti
cancelled the allotment order of Government land bearing 0.265 acres,
which was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta.
2. This litigation has a chequered history which can be recorded in
brief as under:
By an order dated 28.02.1978, a parcel of Government land bearing
0.265 acres of Unakoti District (hereinafter to be referred to as „the suit
land‟) was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta. Saudamini Gupta had
made a will on 28.07.1979 bequeathing the entire land to the petitioner,
who the petitioner says is her brother‟s son. This will was also probated.
Saudamini Gupta died on 25.07.1980. Upon operation of this will thus the
petitioner claims to have become the owner of the land. Previously, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailashahar passed an order on 07.05.1984
cancelling the allotment on the ground that Saudamini had divested the
land in question before 10 years without the permission of the
Government, which was opposed to the condition on which the land was
allotted. The petitioner filed Appeal against the said order and Tripura
Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the Appeal in following terms:
"4. I have gone through the record of Case No.3/84 under
Section 96 of TLR & LR Act 1960 of the Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Kailashar, I am in full agreement with the submissions of
the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, as mentioned above.
There has been gross irregularities and illegality in this case, as the
Learned Sub-Divisional Officer neither had the jurisdiction of
taking up the review in the manner he did nor the justifications
adduced by him for cancellation of the original order were valid
and legal. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 7-5-84 of Sub-
Divisional Officer, Kailashahar in case No.3/84. The question of
successorship of Smt. Saudamini Gupta will naturally be decided
by the competent court."
3. Later on, the Collector and D.M. instituted fresh proceedings for
cancellation of the allotment which culminated into passing of the
impugned order dated 01.03.2013. Before examining the legality of this
order, it may be recorded that against this order the petitioner at one stage
had preferred Appeal, which was allowed in part by an order dated
20.07.2013. However, the High Court by an order dated 19.02.2014 in
W.P. (C) No.298 of 2013 held that the Appeal was not maintainable since
the order passed by the Collector was in exercise of his revisional powers.
The petitioner, thereafter, tried to file a Revision Petition and finding that
even that was not competent filed the present petition.
4. One another element to be noted is that respondent No.3, Ram
Thakur Seba Sadan, which is a registered society, stakes its claim on part
of the suit land. The dispute between the petitioner and the said society
were resolved by the Civil Court by a judgment and decree dated
30.09.1999 in Title Suit No.17 of 1992. Suit of the petitioner, who was the
plaintiff therein, was decreed. There were further proceedings against this
judgment, but suffice it to record that this judgment achieved finality when
these proceedings were dismissed.
5. The proceedings for recalling the allotment of the Government land
to the predecessor in title of the petitioner were reactivated by the Revenue
authorities in the year 2013, which eventually culminated into passing of
the impugned order. In this order, the District Collector, Unakoti referred
to the allotment of the land to Saudamini Gupta, referred to the restriction
of any transfer of such allotted land without the permission of the
Government and also referred to Section 180(1) of TLR & LR Act which
prohibits creation on fragment by way of sale, exchange, gift, bequest
including by way of a Will, mortgage with possession. He was of the
opinion that the allotment of the land was unalienable despite which the
allottee had alienated the land by creating a Will, which was in breach of
the condition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
documents on record, I do not find the impugned order to be sustainable.
Firstly, Section 180(1) of TLR & LR Act would have no application since
even assuming that there was a transfer of the holding by way of a will, it
was a transfer of the entire plot allotted and this cannot be seen as creation
of a fragment by virtue of the will. Secondly, the question of breach of a
condition by the allottee when she bequested this property to the petitioner
under a Will, was already gone into by the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal in
an Appeal filed by the petitioner, which was allowed on 21.02.1989. In this
order, the Tribunal had recorded the contentions of the appellant i.e. the
present petitioner at some length in which it was argued that inheritance of
a property under a will is not a transfer. The land allotted can be inherited
by way of a testamentary or non-testamentary succession. These
contentions were accepted by the Tribunal in paragraph-4 of the judgment,
which has already been reproduced earlier. Thus, inter-party, this question
became final and binding. Thereafter, many years later, the District
Magistrate could not have reopened the issue and taken a contrary
decision. It may be noted that the Tribunal had left the question of dispute
as to the Will to be decided by the competent Court. I am informed, the
Will has been probated and so far none of the legal heirs of Saudamini
Gupta or anyone else has questioned the legality of the will. Therefore, it
was not opened for the Revenue authorities to cancel the allotment on the
ground that the allottee had breached the condition of the allotment.
7. Before closing, I may also record that the Collector in the impugned
order has relied on the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms
(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, which came into force from 11.12.1980.
In the present case, the land was allotted in the year 1978.The will was
made by the allottee in the year 1979 and the will came into operation
upon death of the allottee, which took place on 25.07.1980. The situation
was thus governed by the previous set of Rules called Tripura Land
Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. A passing
reference may also be made to the 1962 Rules where transfer of allotted
land was prohibited without permission of the Government for a period of
10 years after allotment. This possession has substantially changed in the
later Rules of 1980 where such transfer without the permission is not
permissible even at a later point of time.
8. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 01.03.2013 is set
aside. Petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
sima
