Tripura High Court
Smt. Sima Majumder And Others vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 13 February, 2023
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.526/2021
Smt. Sima Majumder and others
.........Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Order
13/02/2023
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Abir Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent No.6.
2. This instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash the order dated
04.11.2008 and the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 (Annexure-7 to
the writ petition) and also directing the respondents to dispose of the
Second Appeal dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition)
Page 2 of 6
preferred by the petitioners before the District Magistrate & Collector,
Gomati Tripura, Udaipur expeditiously.
3. Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the official respondents
and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of
Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
quashing/setting aside the Order dated 04.11.2008
(referred to supra) & the impugned Order dated
14.09.2009 (Annexure-7 supra);
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the official respondents
and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of
Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be
issued, mandating/commending them, to forthwith
revoke/rescind the Order dated 04.11.2008 (referred to
infra) & the impugned Order dated 14.09.2009
(Annexure-7 supra), and to record the names of the
petitioners in the Khatian, in connection with their
respective shares of the land in question, and/or, for
directing them to dispose of the Second Appeal dated
30.12.2009 (Annexure-8 supra) expeditiously, preferred
by the petitioners, before the District Magistrate &
Collector, erstwhile South Tripura (now Gomati Tripura),
Udaipur, within a specific time frame;
(iii) Call for the records, appertaining to this writ
petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the
Rule absolute in terms of (i) & (ii) above;
(v) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
Page 3 of 6
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court
may deem fit and proper."
4. Background
facts of the case, in brief, is that one Raisaheb
Krishna Mohan Majumder, now deceased, was the sole owner of a vast
landed proper in Comilla District, erstwhile East Pakistan and he
exchanged the same with the properties of one Abdul Dhab and others
situated at Sataria, Dhajanagar. He had several legal heirs and after
exchange of properties, it was noticed that the same had exceeded the
ceiling limits of holding by an individual and accordingly, as per his
desire, the land in question was exchanged in favour of his son namely
Monoranjan Majumder. After the death of Raisaheb since said
Monoranjan Majumder, now deceased, had claimed his individual right
over the entire land, the other legal heirs filed a suit being T.S. No.29 of
1969 which was disposed of on 30.05.1975 by the learned Court
declaring said Monoranjan Majumder as Benamdar whereupon he
preferred an appeal being T.A. No.16 of 1975 (later on, renumbered as
T.A. No.04 of 1976) which was allowed on 07.06.1977 quashing the
judgment and decree dated 30.05.1975. Thereafter, the predecessor of
the petitioners preferred a Second Appeal being S.A. No.28 of 1977
before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench which was
allowed vide judgment dated 11.04.1992 quashing the judgment and
decree dated 07.06.1977 and remanding the matter before learned Addl.
District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala to decide the appeal T.A. No.04
of 1976 which was dismissed for default on 22.06.2004. The purported
purchasers of the land prayed for readmission of the said appeal which
was rejected on 05.09.2012 by the learned Addl. District Judge, West
Tripura. Thereafter, the petitioners filed mutation petitions which was
dropped by the DCM, Udaipur on 04.11.2008. Assailing the same, the
petitioners preferred an appeal, but the SDM, Udaipur vide order dated
14.09.2009 did not entertain the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed
a Second Appeal on 30.12.2009 before the District Magistrate &
Collector, Udaipur but the same has not yet been disposed of. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioners preferred this writ petition. Hence, this case.
5. Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, contends that the pursuant to the death of Raisaheb Krishna
Mohan Majumder, all his legal heirs became the absolute owner and
possessor of the land in question, each holding 1/6th proportionate share
thereof but despite the same, one of his legal heirs Monoranjan
Majumder claimed his individual rights refraining others from giving
any share thereof. Counsel also contends that the present petitioners
being the legal heirs of late Kedareswar Majumder, who is the son of
Late Raisaheb Krishna Mohan Majumder, are entitled to their
proportionate share of land in question and vide Judgment and Decree
dated 30.05.1975 in T.S. No.29 of 1969, it was unambiguously clear that
Monoranjan Majumder was the Benamidar of Late Raisaheb and as
such, said Monoranjan is not the absolute owner of the land in question
and the sale deed executed in his favour was a benami transaction and
the said judgment dated 30.05.1975 has attained finality because of
dismissal for default of the appeal (T.A. No.04 of 1976) due to non-
representation of Monoranjan Majumder and others. Counsel further
contends that even after filing of the second appeal by the petitioners on
30.12.2009, the same is still pending for disposal. Accordingly, he prays
for quashing the order dated 04.11.2008 and order dated 14.09.2009 and
also directing the respondents to dispose of the Second Appeal dated
30.12.2009 as expeditiously as possible.
On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned
counsel appearing for the private respondent No.6 fairly submitted that
the appellate authority may be directed to dispose of the second appeal
since it is pending for disposal for a long time.
6. In view of submissions of learned counsel of both sides, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent with whom the
Second Appeal dated 30.12.2009 is pending since long is directed to
dispose of the appeal, if not already disposed of, in accordance with law
within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order, provided the said appeal is in order. However, the decision
shall be communicated by the appellate authority to the petitioners
within the period indicated above.
7. With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Pulak
