For vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 499 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                             RSA No.20 of 2022

For Appellant(s) :           Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):           None.

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                  ORDER

11/05/2022

Heard Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, learned Advocate

appearing for appellants.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC hereunder) against the judgment

dated 07.02.2022 and decree drawn up on 17.02.2022 in Title

Appeal No. 42 of 2017 by the District Judge, West Tripura,

Agartala affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2017

passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2 West Tripura,

Agartala in Title Suit No.136 of 2012 whereunder claim of the

plaintiff-appellants for title, confirmation of possession and

perpetual injunction was dismissed.

[3] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the

plaintiff-appellants has contended that the suit property originally

belonged to Sukhendu Dutta and Prafulla Kumar Majumder as

allottee in terms of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms

(Allotment of Land) Rules who transferred the said land by

execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff appellants.

Counsel has further contended that the plea of the respondents

that the transfer was void because said Sukhendu Dutta and

Prafulla Kumar Majumder did not obtain any prior permission of

the Collector in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Tripura Land Revenue

& Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 for transfer of

the land by execution of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff-

appellants is invalid because under the relevant allotment rules,

no permission of the Collector was necessary for transfer of

allotted land. Counsel therefore, contends that the trial Court had

committed error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants

and the First Appellate Court had also erroneously dismissed the

appeal.

[4] Counsel therefore, urges the Court to formulate the

substantial question of law in terms of Section 100(4) CPC and

admit the appeal for hearing.

[5] Perused the record and considered the submissions of

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff-

appellants. Admit this appeal on the following substantial question

of law:

(i) Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court returned by the impugned judgment is perverse because under the relevant Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules; no prior permission of the Collector was required for transfer of the allotted land ?

[6] The appellant(s) shall be at liberty to raise any other

substantial question of law at the time of hearing this appeal, if so

advised.

Call for the L. C record.

Issue usual notice, returnable on 20.06.2022.

The appellant(s) shall take steps for service of notice

upon the respondents within a week from today.

List the matter on 20.06.2022.

JUDGE

Dipankar