Mr. S. S. Dey vs None
2022 Latest Caselaw 529 Tri

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                         Review Pet. 19 of 2022
For Petitioner(s)                    : Mr. S. S. Dey, Adv. General.
                                     : Mr. Anujit Dey, Adv.
For Respondent(s)                    : None.
                :
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                                 ORDER

19.05.2022

This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution

of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 praying for a review of the Judgment and Order dated

01.04.2022 passed by this court in CRP No. 17 of 2022.

[2] This humble Review applicants were impleaded as

Respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in CRP No. 17 of 2022. The

Review Application was posted for consideration before this Court

on 29.03.2022 directing listing of the matter again on

31.03.2022 so as to enable the review petitioner to place on

record the prove of service of the compromise deed. Thereafter,

the matter having been posted on 01.04.2022 final order was

passed inter alia allowing the CRP No. 17 of 2022. [3] Facts which are germane and important for the

determination of the issue raised before this court but not placed

by the petitioner and due to non-issue of Notice could not be

otherwise placed for consideration of this court by the respondent

authorities (Review Applicants herein) may be summarized that

the land measuring 0.1070 acre classified as bastu and nall

recorded in Khatian No. 752 of Mouja Agartala originally stood in

the name of one Smt. Kumuda Sundari Devi, wife of Lt. Purna

Chandra Bhattacharjee. On the death of the said Smt. Kumuda

Sundari Devi, the name of following 6 persons were mutated on

record on the basis of survival certificate vide MR Case No. 342

dated 10.08.2001.

[4] This court feels that nothing survives for the purpose of

reviewing the matter since the order has been passed after

hearing all concerned. The order passed by this court is very

clear giving liberty to the concerned officer to pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law. However, it is clarified

that the order of this court has not tied the hands of the

concerned officer in passing any order in accordance with law.

[5] Upon the request of the learned Advocate General, the

observation made against Mr. Asim Saha, ADM & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala with regard to "passing such order without

application of mind'' stands expunged.

[6] With the above observation, this Review Petition stands

dismissed.

JUDGE

Rahul