Tripura High Court
) Rualchhingi Lushai @ ... vs ) The State Of Tripura on 9 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.319 OF 2022
1) Rualchhingi Lushai @ Lalthanmawii Lushai
W/o Late L.T. Zama Lushai.
2) Zovi Lushai,
W/o- late H. Malswama.
3) Lalnunthara Lushai,
S/o- Late H. Malswama.
4) Lalchhanchhuaha Lushai,
S/o- Late H. Malswama,
All are resident of Vanghmun, P.O. & P.S. Vanghmun,
Sub-Division- Kanchanpur, Distt-North Tripura.
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1) The State of Tripura.
(To be represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department,
Government of Tripura). New Secretariat Building, New
Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2) The Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
3) The Director, Department of Agriculture,
Govt. of Tripura, Krishi Bhavan, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN-799001.
4) The Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Govt. of Tripura, Jawharnagar, Dhalai Tripura.
5) The Superintendent of Agriculture,
Govt. of Tripura, Chawmanu Agri Sub-Division,
Chailengta, Dhalai Tripura.
Page 2 of 5
6) The Superintendent of Horticulture,
Govt. of Tripura, Manu Horti Sub-Division, Distt- Dhalai
Tripura.
7) The District Magistrate & Collector, Govt of
Tripura, O/o the DM & Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa.
8) The Chief Executive Officer,
TTAADC, Khumlung, Jirania Tripura.
9) The Principal Officer of Agriculture,
TTAADC Khumlung.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 09.01.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
The brief fact of this instant writ petition is that
the petitioners herein have prayed for direction upon the
respondents who are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of
the land measuring 3.00 acres belonging to the petitioners.
According to the petitioners herein, the respondents should
either vacate the land measuring 3.00 acres, recorded under
Plot No.99/327, Khatian No.38, Mouja-Nalkata, Pargana-
Birchandranagar, Revenue Circle-Manu, Sub Division-
Longtharai Valley, District-Dhalai after paying rent for
use/occupation of the said land or to acquire the said land
through due process of law by paying adequate compensation
to the petitioners herein.
2) Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted
by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that respondents who are the State and its
instrumentalities cannot take the plea of adverse possession
against the petitioners' constitutional rights to enjoy their
property. The respondents have infringed upon the right of
property guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. The respondents took over
possession of the land of the petitioners without any sanction
of law.
To support his argument, learned Sr. counsel
relied upon Para-15 of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment
reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC)347 titled as Sukh Dutt Ratra
and anr Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors dated
04.06.2022 which is reproduced here-in-under:-
"15. When it comes to the subject of private
property, this court has upheld the high threshold of
legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of
their property, and even more so when done by the State.
In Bishandas v. State of Punjab19 this court rejected the
contention that the petitioners in the case were trespassers
and could be removed by an executive order, and instead
concluded that the executive action taken by the State and
its officers, was destructive of the basic principle of the rule
of law. This court, in another case - State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors.20, held:
"A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume
possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee,
even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by
forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression 're-entry'
in the lease-deed does not authorise extra- judicial
methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession
of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination
is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is
prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than
in due course of law. In the present case, the fact that the
lessor is the State does not place it in any higher or better
position. On the contrary, it is under an additional
inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions
of Government and Governmental authorities should have
a 'legal pedigree'".
3) Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appears on behalf
of the respondents.
4) After hearing learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and perusing the evidence on record, this present
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents Nos.2 & 3
herein to consider the case of the petitioners and pass an
appropriate order within a period of 1(one) month from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioners are at
liberty to place any relevant records and also the judgments of
the law of land which are there in support of his contention. Till
the decision is taken, status quo is to be maintained by both
sides.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
