Tripura High Court
Shri Gopal Roy Son Of Late Bharat ... vs Shri Arjun Chandra Roy Son Of Late ... on 31 August, 2021
Page 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.152 of 2021
Shri Gopal Roy Son of late Bharat Chandra Roy, Resident of Village-
Barabhaiya, Bagma, PO and PS- R.K. Pur, Sub- Division- Udaipur,
District- Gomati Tripura
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Shri Arjun Chandra Roy Son of late Manoranjan Roy, resident of Village-
Barabhaiya, Bagma, PO and PS- R.K. Pur, Sub- Division- Udaipur,
District-Gomati, Tripura
2.Shri Krishna Chandra Roy, son of late Manoranjan Roy, resident of
Village-Barabhaiya, Bagma, P.O. and P.S.- R.K. Pur, Sub- Division-
Udaipur, District-Gomati, Tripura.
3.Shri Kajal Chandra Roy, son of late Manoranjan Roy, resident of Village-
Barabhaiya, Bagma, P.O. and P.S.- R.K. Pur, Sub- Division- Udaipur,
District-Gomati, Tripura.
4.Shri Ratan Roy, son of late Manoranjan Roy, resident of Village-
Barabhaiya, Bagma, P.O. and P.S.- R.K. Pur, Sub- Division- Udaipur,
District-Gomati, Tripura.
5.Smt. Arati Bala Roy, Wife of late Manoranjan Roy, resident of Village-
Barabhaiya, Bagma, P.O. and P.S.- R.K. Pur, Sub-Division- Udaipur,
District- Gomati, Tripura.
6.Smt. Ila Rani Roy (Shil), Wife of Subhash Shil, resident of Village-
Thakcherra, P.O. and P.S- Birganj, Amarpur, District- Gomati, Tripura.
7.Smt. Pranati Bala Roy, Wife of Shri Uttam Shil, Resident of village-
Dhalai, P.O. and P.S.- Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.
8.The State of Tripura Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura, P.O.- Kunjaban, P.S-New
Capital Complex, District- West Tripura.
9.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Udaipur, P.O. and P.S.- R.K.Pur, Gomati
District.
-----Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 9
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.K.Nama, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Adv.
ORDER
31.08.2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned
Single Judge dated 10.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 370 of 2016.
[2] Brief facts are as under:
The Respondents no. 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 02 of 2013 before the court of Civil
Judge, Sr. Division against the present appellant Gopal Roy and
others. With respect to the suit land, one Satsang Ashram also seems
to be staking its claim and we are informed that Gopal Roy and
'Santsang Ashram' also have interconnection. Be that as it may, the
case of the plaintiffs in the said title suit was for restoration of the
possession of the suit land which was granted to Manoranjan Roy and
which according to them, was in actual possession of Manoranjan Roy
but later on they were dispossessed.
[3] 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.
[4] The present appellant Gopal Roy 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 District
Court, 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 04.04.2018 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. 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.
After preparation of the decree, send down the
records."
[5] 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 Roya 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.
[6] 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.
[7] The successors in title of Manoranjan Roy therefore filed
WP(C) 370 of 2016 and challenged the said order dated 11.08.2014
passed by the DM. The learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment set aside the order making the following observations:
"14. In the instant case also the right, title and interest
and recovery of possession have been declared in
favour of the petitioners by Civil Courts in T.S. No.02
of 2013, further affirmed by learned District Judge in
T.A. No.31 of 2013. The petitioners as plaintiffs again
challenged the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the
Revenue Court in DM Case No.32/2012 by way of
filing of civil suit against the State of Tripura for
cancelling the allotment order issued in favour of late
Manoranjan Roy, the predecessor-ininterest of the
petitioners. The Civil Court after recording evidence
of both the parties and threadbare enquiry has
confirmed the possession of petitioners over the suit
land. Be that as it may, in my considered view and
following the ratio settled in Dhaneswar
Debbarma(supra), the Revenue Court cannot overrule
or nullify the judgment and decree passed by a Civil
Court. The decree passed by the Civil Court in regard
to title and possession is binding upon the Revenue
Court. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ
petition deserves to be allowed.
(emphasis supplied)
15. Accordingly, the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur in DM Case
No.32/2012 cancelling the allotment of land allotted in
favour of Late Manoranjan Roy, the predecessor of
the writ petitioners is hereby set aside and quashed.
The State respondents are directed to correct the
Record of Rights(RoR) in favour of the petitioners
and restore the Record of Rights(RoR) as it was
before cancellation and do the needful to record the
names of the present petitioners who indisputably are
the legal heirs of Late Manoranjan Roy. In other
words, the State-respondents are directed to do the
needful in accordance with the order/decree passed by
the Civil Court as aforestated.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
this writ petition is allowed, and accordingly, the same
stands disposed."
[8] Sri Gopal Roy has, thereupon filed this writ appeal. His
counsel vehemently contended that the civil court has no jurisdiction
to decide the question of cancellation of allotment of land by the DM
since this is within the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities
under TLR and LR Act. The decree of civil court, therefore, would
not prevent the DM from passing appropriate order. The learned
Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the said order dated
11.08.2014.
[9] On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri Arijit Bhowmik
appearing for some of the original petitioners oppose the appeal
contending that the learned Single Judge has given proper reasons for
allowing the writ petition. He pointed out that in the civil proceedings
the petitioners had succeeded all stages.
[10] The record would thus show that after the land was
allotted to Manoranjan Roy, his successors after his death filed the
civil suit and complained about the dispossession by Gopal Roy and
Satsang Ashram. The Civil Court accepted the suit, directing the re-
possession of the plaintiffs and also issued a permanent injunction
against the defendants from disturbing such possession when restored.
The first appeal against the judgment of the civil court was dismissed.
[11] In the second appeal, the learned Judge made certain
observations which are somewhat perplexing. The reference was made
to the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the DM cancelling the
allotment in favour of Manoranjan Roy. This order was not part of the
civil proceedings and we wander whether in Second Appeal the same
could have been referred to or relied upon without being exhibited.
This apart, to make the outcome of the Second Appeal contingent on
the order dated 11.08.2014 being upheld or reversed, was of curious
direction. However, this order is not being challenged before us. What
happened thereafter was that the petitioners' challenge to the order
dated 11.08.2014 came to be examined in the writ petition and in
which on the ground that civil court has already decided the issues in
favour of the petitioners, the order passed by the DM was set aside.
[12] One fundamental defect which has cropped up in the
present proceedings is that in the impugned judgment the learned has
erroneously recorded that the order dated 11.08.2014 was challenged
by the plaintiffs in a civil suit which is not true. Further, order of the
DM dated 11.08.2014 was set aside primarily on the grounds that
when the Civil Court had already injuncted the DM from doing so and
that the Civil Court had held that the plaintiffs are entitled to
restoration of possession. These grounds are not valid. The order was
passed by the DM on 11.08.2014 when the Civil Court decreed the
suit of the plaintiffs injuncting the DM from cancelling the allotment
on 22.09.2014. This decree therefore was infructous. Further, in the
Second Appeal the learned Single Judge has kept the question of
possession contingent to the validity of the order dated 11.08.2014
passed by the DM. Whereas in the present judgment, the order dated
11.08.2014 is set aside on the ground that the possession has already
been proved in favour of the plaintiffs. This is clearly a fallacious
argument. All the issues shall have to be re-examined by the single
judge. For such purpose, the impugned judgment of learned Single
Judge is set aside and the proceedings are placed back before the
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and disposal in
accordance with law.
[13] Appeal disposed of in above terms.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Saikat Sarma
