Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 23 February, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.1/2016 and WA No.7/2016
A) WA No.1/2016 :
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government
of Tripura, Secretariat Building New Capital Complex, Agartala.
2. The Principal Secretary
Government of Tripura, Department of Revenue Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala.
3. The Director
Land Records and Settlement, Government of Tripura, Palace
Compound Agartala, West Tripura.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
represented by its General Manager, North-East Integrated Estate
Office Bamuni Maidan, Gauhati - 21.
.............. Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P Saha, Advocate,
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. P Dhar, Advocate.
B) WA No.7/2016 :
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
represented by its General Manager,
North- East Integrated Estate Office, Bamuni Maidan, Gauhati - 21.
.............. Respondent(s).
Vs.
Page - 2 of 5
1. The State of Tripura
represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of
Tripura, Secretariat Building, Gurkhabasti, Agartala.
2.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Building,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala
3.The Director,
Land Revenue and Settlement, Government of Tripura,
P/O - Agartala, West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mrs. P Dhar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P Saha, Advocate.
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
Date of hearing & judgment : 23rd February, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the
learned Single Judge and are filed by State of Tripura and Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL) respectively.
[2] The original writ petition [WP(C)No.391/2010] was filed by the
IOCL to challenge an order dated 20th February, 2010 passed by Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department concerning a land situated at Kumarghat
Page - 3 of 5
which we are informed admeasures about 2.01 acres. The said authority
had declared the Government as the owner of the land. IOCL claimed that
it was a non-agricultural tenant of an intermediary and, therefore, would
automatically become the tenant of the Government. Learned Single
Judge disposed of the petition by a judgment on 29th April, 2015 and set
aside the order passed by the Principal Secretary dated 22 nd October 2010,
however, in the process, made some observations upon which the State
Government as well as IOCL felt aggrieved and therefore, two separate
writ appeals have been filed.
[3] These appeals are pending since a long time. This was primarily
on the ground that after the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ
petition, another judgment was delivered by the High Court in second
appeals [RSA Nos.59/2012 and 69/2012] which were between the
Government of Tripura, the erstwhile owners of the land - the
intermediary, and the IOCL. This judgment was delivered on 23rd
September, 2016. Under this judgment, the suit of the original plaintiffs
came to be dismissed and it was declared that the land in question had
vested in the Government w.e.f. 15th April, 1963 and the land would be
treated as a Khas land. Thus, there is a clear conflict of judicial opinions.
One expressed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition which is
Page - 4 of 5
under challenge in the present appeals and another by a Bench of co-
ordinate jurisdiction in second appellate jurisdiction. Faced with such
realities, the IOCL has initiated steps for recalling the judgment in second
appeal by filing a review petition. According to the IOCL, second appeal
was disposed of without a proper service of notice to it. We are not
required to go into the correctness of this averment since the review
petition is pending and would be disposed of by the concerned Judge in
accordance with law.
[4] Ordinarily, we would have waited for the outcome of the review
petition and examined what should be the future course before the Court if
review was allowed. However, in the present case, for multiple reasons
we do not find it necessary to keep these writ appeals pending. Firstly, the
land area is not very large. Secondly, it is a quarrel between the State
Government and the Central Government Corporation. Thirdly, at present
whatever the development is standing on the land we do not propose to
disturb. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are disposed of with
following directions :
(a) The writ petition stands disposed of without any
order on merit.
Page - 5 of 5
(b) Once the review petition of IOCL is decided, it
would be open for either side to institute fresh
proceedings before this Court, if so required including
for challenging the order of the Principal Secretary dated
22nd October 2010.
(c) Till this is done, both sides will maintain status quo
with respect to possession and title of the land in
question.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
