Sri Gopal Roy vs Shri Arjun Chandra Roy
2022 Latest Caselaw 1145 Tri

                                                  Page 1 of 10



                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                     WA NO.73 OF 2022

1. Sri Gopal Roy,
S/o. Late Bharat Chandra Roy,
Resident of village-Barabhaiya, Bagma,
P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur, Sub-Division-Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.
                                    ---- Appellant(s).
                          Versus

1. Shri Arjun Chandra Roy,

2. Shri Krishna Chandra Roy,

3. Shri Kajal Chandra Roy,

4. Shri Ratan Roy,
All, sons of late Monoranjan Roy,
Resident of Village- Barabhaiya,
Bagma, P.O. & P.S.- R.K. Pur,
Sub-Division- Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.

5. Smt. Arati Bala Roy,
Wife of Late Monoranjan Roy,
Resident of Village- Barabhiaya, Bagma,
P.O. & P.S.- R.K. Pur, Sub-Division- Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.

6. Smt. Ila Rani Roy(Shil),
W/O Subhash Shil, R/O village-Thakcherra,
P.O. & P.S. Birganj, Amarpur,
District-Gomati Tripura.

7. Smt. Pranati Bala Roy,
W/O Sri Uttam Shil, R/O village Dhalai,
P.O. & P.S. Sonamura,
District: Sepahijala, Tripura.
                                   -----Respondent(s).

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, Gomati District, P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur, District-Gomati.

............... Proforma Respondents. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.

Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.

Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

Date of hearing             : 20.12.2022.

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order            : 22.12.2022.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.


        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
                        JUDGMENT & ORDER
CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)

This instant appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 24.03.2022 passed in WP(C)

No.370 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, under Rule-2,

Chapter V-A, of the Gauhati High Court Rules.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the

respondents 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 bearing No. T.S. 02 of

2013 before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division against

the appellant herein and others. With respect to the suit

land, one Satsang Ashram also seems to be projected its

claim and it is revealed that appellant-Gopal Roy and

„Satsang Ashram‟ also have interconnection. Be that as it

may, the case of the plaintiffs in the said title suit was for

the restoration of the possession of the suit land which was

granted to the plaintiffs, 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 to 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, and interest over the suit property and

were entitled to retain the possession after recovery

thereof.

4. The 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 learned District Court; however, the appeal was

dismissed on 18.05.2015. The defendants thereupon filed

Second Appeal No. 27 of 2015 before this Court. The

second Appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated

04.05.2018 in the following terms:-

"15. Having regard to all these, this court is of the view thatthe 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. 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"

5. The respondents herein i.e 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

canceled. The appellant 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. 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 SDM

and requested that the allotment in favour of Manoranjan

Roy be canceled. The SDM thereupon, after hearing the

successors in title of deceased-Manoranjan Roy passed an

order on 11.08.2014 canceling 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. Aggrieved thereby, the impugned WP(C)

No.370 of 2016 was filed by the successors in title of

Manoranjan Roy challenging the order dated 11.08.2014

passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, in D.M.

Case No.32 of 2012 whereby the SDM canceled the

allotment order issued in 1973 for land measuring 0.20

acres recorded in C.S. Plot No.363/1465 corresponding to

R.S. Plot No.1278 under Khatian No.557 of Mouja-

Barabhaiya, T.K. Bagma.

8. The learned Single Judge vide order dated

10.12.2019 allowed the Writ Petition. Thereafter, Writ

Appeal No.152 of 2021 was preferred against the judgment

of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2019. After hearing

the parties, this Court set aside the said judgment of the

learned Single Judge and remanded back the matter for

fresh consideration and adjudication before the learned

Single Judge as per law.

9. After the case was remanded back to the

learned Single Judge, the same was heard and the present

appellant submitted a written argument. Vide judgment and

order dated 24.03.2022, the learned Single Judge disposed

of the said Writ Petition in the following terms:-

"11. The order dated 11.08.2014, passed by the State- respondents in DM Case No.32 of 2012, cancelling the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners, i.e. the successors in interest of late Manoranjan Roy is hereby quashed and set aside. The allotment of the land in question shall stand restored in favour of the petitioners with immediate effect and consequently, khatian i.e. Record-of-right created in favour of the petitioners as allottee also stands restored."

10. Aggrieved thereby this instant appeal has

been filed by the appellant herein praying to set aside the

said judgment and order dated 24.03.2022.

11. Heard Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, and Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel

assisted by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A.

assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-State.

12. Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant herein argued that the learned Single Judge

has not given any finding with regard to the findings

recorded by the Revenue Court while canceling the alleged

allotment order and thus failed to appreciate the relevant

provisions contained in TLR & LR Act. Learned Single

judgment without referring to any statute or author wrongly

held that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil

Court is binding upon the Revenue Court.

13. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondents contended that the Civil Court

had already decreed the suit declaring the right, title, and

interest in favour of the respondents including decree of

recovery of possession, perpetual injunction restraining the

respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession

of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondents further submitted that after the decree dated

28.09.2013, was passed against the appellant herein, he

approached the Revenue Court by filing DM Case

No.32/2012, and during the proceeding, the decree dated

28.09.2013 was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, but, the said decree of the Civil Court was

nullified by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of

inquiry report of Tehshilder, Revenue Inspector, etc. which

according to learned counsel was illegal and contrary to

settled law. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that

the findings of the Civil Court should not be disturbed by

the Revenue Court.

14. After hearing both the parties and perusing

the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the

Revenue Court has committed a serious error of law in

passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2014. It is a

settled proposition of law that the judgment and decree

passed by the Civil Court is binding upon the Revenue

Court. In other words, the decree passed by the Civil Court

will prevail over the judgment and order of the Revenue

Court. Yet another aspect, in this instant case is that the

Revenue Authority has not initiated any proceeding for

cancellation of the allotment order in favour of the

predecessor of the respondents which was allotted in the

year 1973. The proceeding was initiated at the instance of

the appellant herein, which is not permissible under any

circumstance. According to this Court, the Revenue

Authority who grants allotment in favour of a particular

person is authorized to cancel the allotment order within

the ambit as embodied in the "Allotment Rules' and that too

within a period of reasonable time i.e., not beyond three

years.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is

of the opinion that that instant writ appeal is devoid of any

merit and the same stands dismissed. The judgment and

order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2022 stands

affirmed.

16. Consequently, pending application(s), if any also

stands closed.

      JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




suhanjit