Sri Badal Chandra Shil vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 56 Tri

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                             W.P.(C) No.1109 of 2016

     Sri Badal Chandra Shil,
     son of late Manik Shil,
     resident of village: Uttar Doulbari,
     Damdama, P.O. & P.S. Sabroom,
     District: South Tripura

                                                       ............ Petitioner (s)

                                   -Versus-

1.   The State of Tripura,
     represented by the Secretary-cum-
     Commissioner,
     Revenue Department,
     Government of Tripura,
     Secretariat Building,
     New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
     Agartala, District: West Tripura
2.   The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
     Government of Tripura,
     Sabroom, District: South Tripura
3.   Shri Abhiram Debbarma,
     Deputy Collector and Magistrate,
     Sabroom, District: South Tripura
4.   Shri Krishna Kishore Chakma,
     Revenue Inspector,
     Sabroom, District: South Tripura
5.   Sri Bhabatosh Das,
     son of late Harish Chandra Das,
     resident of village: Uttar Doulbari,
     Damdama, P.O. & P.S. Sabroom,
     District: South Tripura
6.   Sri Ashutosh Das,
     son of late Harish Chandra Das,
     resident of village: Uttar Doulbari,
     Damdama, P.O. & P.S. Sabroom,
     District: South Tripura

                                                  ............ Respondent (s)

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, Adv. For the Respondent (s) : Mr. N. Majumder, Adv.

Mr. H. Sarkar, Adv.

Date of hearing & delivery   :        11.01.2021
of Judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting    :        NO

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                      JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Heard Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. H. Sarkar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 & 6. Despite due notice

from this court, none represents the respondents No.3 and 4. The

respondents No.3 and 4, the Revenue Officers, who were

instrumental in conducting the field inquiry and preparing the

report [Annexure-E to the writ petition].

[2] The grievance of the petitioner in short is that despite he

was in possession of the land measuring 2.14 acre recorded in

Khatian No.949 of Mouja-Doulbari, Revenue Circle-Sabroom under

C.S. Plot No.130/2925, PB-621, 133/2929 corresponding to RS Plot

No.446 and 453 being allotted the respondent No.2 (Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Sabroom) cancelled the allotment order by the order

dated 14.07.2016 [Annexure-I to the writ petition].

[3] The proceeding being Case No.15/Allot/2014 was

initiated for cancellation of the allotment order by issuance of the

notice dated 18.06.2016 [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. In the

notice, it had been alleged that the petitioner were not possessing

the allotted land and also did not bring the land under cultivation. It

is apparent that violation of Rule 12 of the Tripura Land Revenue

and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 has been

alleged against the petitioner. For purpose of initiating the

proceeding, after receipt of the complaint from the respondents

No.5 and 6, a field inquiry was directed and the report of the said

field inquiry was duly furnished to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by

the Revenue Inspector vide his report dated 02.03.2015

[Annexure-E to the writ petition]. In the said report, it has been

categorically observed that the respondents No.5 and 6 have been

occupying the land measuring 0.58 and 1.56, total 2.14 acre,

comprised in Plot No.453 and 446 of mouja Doulbari under

Sabroom Tahashil Kachari. The Revenue Inspector had suggested

cancellation of the allotment order as the petitioner had failed to

utilize the allotted land and thus, he had breached the provision of

Rule 12 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment

of Land) Rules, 1980. The show-cause notice was issued on the

basis of the said field inquiry report.

[4] The petitioner filed his objection against the report and

asserted that he has been occupying the land for more than 32/35

years and enjoying the possession by planting valuable Garjan

trees etc. None other than the petitioner is in possession of the said

land. Despite such plea taken, the said order dated 14.07.2016

[Annexure-I to the writ petition] has been passed by the Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura. It appears

that even the witnesses as produced by the petitioner had stated in

the proceeding that the petitioner was in possession of the land

under question, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having relied on

the said field inquiry report, disbelieved the other evidence as

adduced by the petitioner.

[5] On the basis of the said field inquiry report the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate has inferred that allotment made in favour of

the petitioner is liable to be cancelled inasmuch as the land that

was allotted was not used within two years from the date of

allotment. At the same time, the SDM has recorded in the order of

cancellation as under:

"The allottee was not eligible for this allotment in terms of the TLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 or guilty of misrepresentation at the time of allotment."

[6] Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has submitted that while allotting a land, the Revenue

officials make a field survey to find whether the person in his favour

the allotment would be made was in possession or whether the land

is vacant to put the person in whose favour the allotment would be

made. No allotment order is issued solely on the basis of the

statement by the person, interested to get the allotment.

Therefore, the said statement is unacceptable. That apart, Mr.

Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that a part of the

allotted land was acquired by the government on public interest

and the petitioner was paid the due compensation for such

acquisition. Hence, it can safely be stated that the petitioner was is

in possession.

[7] Appearing for the respondents, both Mr. N. Majumder,

learned counsel and Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel have stated in

unison that the petitioner was never in possession on the allotted

land and by suppression of that fact, he had secured the allotment.

Hence, he did never enjoy the land allotted to him. On the

complaint, the respondents No.4 and 5 clearly stated that the

petitioner was never in possession over the allotted land. That land

was under their possession. When the field survey was carried out,

it surfaced that the petitioner was never in possession on the

alloted land. Therefore, it had been irresistible that the allotment

should be cancelled. As such, there is no infirmity in the order of

allotment.

[8] Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted

that from the impugned order, it would be apparent that even in

the Column No.16 of computerized khatian and Column No.24 of

manual khatian, the respondents No.5 and 6 have been recorded as

unauthorized occupants. The petitioner did never take any initiative

to get their names scored out from the khatian. Mr. N. Majumder,

learned counsel has, in particular, raised an objection that the writ

petition should not be entertained as an effective and speedy

remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 95 of the Tripura

Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

[9] This court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr.

R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel that no copy of the field inquiry

report was annexed with the show cause notice nor was it supplied

to the petitioner to raise objection. Thus, the petitioner was denied

of the substantive opportunity of having his say over that report.

Be that as it may, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, this

court is inclined to pass the following order for substantive ends of

justice.

(i) This court is reluctant to exercises its extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

as the petitioner do have efficacious and substantive

remedy under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue

and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

(ii) The petitioner is given liberty to file the petition under

Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 to the competent

authority i.e. the District Collector, South Tripura,

Belonia within a period of 20(twenty) days. In that

event, no objection as regards laches or delay be

entertained by the District Collector. During that time

the order dated 14.07.2016 [Annexure-I to the writ

petition] shall not be given any effect. In the

contemplated proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR &

LR Act, the petitioner be afforded opportunity to raise

objection against the field inquiry report. The District

Collector would decide the legality of the order of

cancellation of the allotment order. Whether the

impugned order will be sustained or not, will be decided

by the District Collector in the proceeding under Section

95 of the TLR & LR Act.

In terms of the above, this application stands allowed.

The records as produced by Mr. N. Majumder, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 are returned.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R. G.

Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by

15.01.2021.

JUDGE

Moumita