Tripura High Court
For vs Mr. D. Deb on 1 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA 6 of 2021
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Deb, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
01.06.2021
Heard Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the
reversal judgment dated 17.02.2021 delivered in T.A. 23 of 2019 by the
Additional District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar. By the
said judgment, the judgment dated 29.03.2019 by the Civil Judge (Sr.
Div), Court No.2, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar has been
reversed by observing inter alia that moreover, Allotment Rules,
1980, nowhere provides that sale without the permission of
Collector would be ipsa facto invalid. Hence, sale without the
permission of Collector is not void ab intio. It is merely a condition
that allotted land cannot be sold without the permission of
Collector and consequence of disobedience of rule is also provided.
As consequence, rules provide that for violation of condition of
allotment order, competent authority can cancel the allotment.
Rules do not provide that sale in violation of condition of
allotment, without permission of Collector, would be ipsa facto
void ab initio. Unless allotment is cancelled by allotment authority,
the sale without permission cannot be said to be void. A sale deed
cannot be automatically said to be void for violating a term of
allotment. If an allottee violates any terms of allotment or any
rule governing the allotment, in that case allotting authority may
cancel the allotment but for such reason, it cannot be said that the
sale deed executed itself should be treated as void.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel has submitted
that this observation will make a statutory rule otiose and
interpretation is prohibited.
The appeal is admitted to be heard on following
substantial questions of law:
(i) When the defendants were in possession over the suit land
before the land was allotted in the name of the predecessor of
the plaintiff, can such allotment have any force in law?
(ii) Whether the interpretation in respect of the condition of
allotment emanating straight under Rule 12 of the Tripura Land
Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 can
be sustained, inasmuch as a statutory prohibition which provides
that without prior permission of the collector allotted land
cannot be transferred or can it be interpreted that for violation
of the Rule 12 of the said Rules the transaction cannot be held
void?
Issue notice.
Call for records.
Notice is made returnable on 11.08.2021.
Steps for service of notice on the respondents be taken
by the petitioner within three days from today by registered post
with AD.
In the meanwhile, the operation of the decree dated
17.02.2020 delivered in TA 23 of 2019 by the Additional District
Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar shall remain
suspended.
It is made absolutely clear that the respondents may
approach this court for vacation of this interim order, even prior to
the returnable date.
JUDGE
Dipak
