Tripura High Court
Smt. Babita Saha vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1 February, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 95 of 2022
1. Smt. Babita Saha,
wife of late Subal Saha, Age-53
2. Smt. Pinky Saha,
daughter of late Subal Saha, Age-37
3. Shri Mithun Saha,
son of late Subal Saha, Age-32
4. Smt. Simran Saha,
daughter of late Subal Saha, Age-23
All are the residents of Pratapgarh, near Ekta Club,
Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura
..............Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sadar Sub-Division, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2. Waris Finance International Ltd.
Having its local offices at Waris Bhaban,
L.N Bari Road, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura,
represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director,
Present Address-
22 Camac Street, Block-A(1st Floor),
Kolkata-700016, West Bengal.
3. North Eastern Development Finance
Corporation Ltd. (NEDFi),
NEDFi House, G.S. Road, Dispur,
Guwahati- 781006, Assam.
......... Respondents
With
CRP 76 of 2021
1. Hotel Simran Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by its Managing Director,
Smt. Babita Saha, wife of late Subal Saha,
L.N. Bari Road, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
2. Smt. Babita Saha,
wife of late Subal Saha,
3. Smt. Pinky Saha,
daughter of late Subal Saha,
Page 2 of 9
4. Shri Mithun Saha,
son of late Subal Saha,
5. Smt. Simran Saha,
daughter of late Subal Saha,
All are the residents of Pratapgarh, near Ekta Club,
Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura
........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. M/s Waris Finance International
Limited, Shane Ahmed Warsi,
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
5-A Lenin Sarani, Opposite Metropoli,
First Floor, Hotel Kapoor Cottage,
Kolkata-700013.
2. North Eastern Development Finance
Corporation Limited(NEDFi),
NEDFi House, G.S. Road,
Dispur, Guwahati- 781006, Assam.
3. The State of Tripura-
through Secretary, Department of
Revenue,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala
Secretariat, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799010
.........Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SM Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. RR Datta, Advocate.
Ms. Ankita Pal, Advocate.
Ms. A. Begam, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order : 01.02.2024
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. RR Datta, learned counsel, Ms. Ankita Pal, learned counsel and Ms. A.
Begam, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. M. Debbarma,
learned Addl. G.A. and Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A.
[2] The present CRP 95 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the
learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc(Rev) 05 of 2021
dismissing the Review petition.
[3] The brief facts of the case of the petitioners in CRP 95 of 2022
are that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners took loan from
NEDFi, a financial institutions, but he could not repay the loan and
ultimately NEDFi initiated a proceeding in DRT against him and after his
demise, it continued against his legal heirs, the petitioners herein. The
matter was settled between the petitioners and NEDFi and the amounts so
settled was deposited by the petitioners and consequent upon that NEDFi
issued a clearance certificate dated 06.04.20211 in favour of the
petitioners.
[4] It is contended by the petitioners that the auction process
initiated by DRT also closed following the clearance of dues by the
petitioners but respondent No.2 i.e. Waris Finance International Ltd.
managed to get mutation for the said property by showing a purported sale
certificate for the immovable property, namely Hotel Simran Pvt. Ltd. The
Revenue Authority granted mutation in favour of them without serving any
notice upon the petitioners. The petitioners when came to know about the
said mutation, they filed a Review petition before the Collector to review the
order of mutation, but he rejected the prayer.
[5] Thereafter, a Revision was filed before the Revisional Authority
and that revision was also dismissed by taking into consideration the
purported sale certificate, issued in the name of respondent No.2.
Challenging that order of Revisional Authority (Revenue Secretary), the
petitioners filed a CRP before this Court numbered as CRP 76 of 2021 which
is now taken for disposal along with this CRP 95 of 2022. The State
Government at one point of time closed the Chit Fund business in Tripura
and started taking action against them, including the respondent No.2. and
to refund the deposit to the depositors, the properties of the Chit Funds
were attached in which the property of the petitioners namely, Hotel Simran
Pvt. Ltd. was also attached, as the mutation was in the name of respondent
No.2 that too without any notice to the petitioners. The respondent No.1,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division- Sadar, Agartala filed a petition in
the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala seeking
permission to sell the property in auction, which was registered as Civil Misc
(TPID) 09 of 2016, but in the said proceedings, the petitioners were not
made parties. When the petitioners came to know about that judgment,
they filed a Review Petition in that Court, but the said learned Court
rejected the Review petition by taking into consideration the sale certificate
ignoring the final order of the DRT dated 25.11.2011 and the clearance
certificate dated 06.04.2011 issued by NEDFi in favour of the petitioners.
[6] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the
petitioners have preferred this present CRP 95 of 2022 seeking following
reliefs:
i) Admit the petition;
ii) Issue notice upon the respondents.
iii) Call for the records of Civil Misc. (TPID) 09 of 2016 and Civil Misc.
(Review) 05 of 2021 arising out of the above numbered case;
iv) After hearing the petition, to set aside the order dated 18.11.2022
passed in Civil Misc.(Review) 05 of 2021 along with the order dated
15.03.2021 passed in Civil Misc. (TPID) 09 of 2016.
v) Stay the operation of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the
learned Court below and the auction sale of the property of the
petitioners till disposal of the Revision Petition.
[7] The CRP 76 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners under Article 227
of the Constitution of India for exercising the power of superintendence
against the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Secretary, Government
of Tripura, Revenue Department in case No.04/Revision/Rev./Secy./2016
under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960
(TLR& LR Act, 1960).
[8] In the present CRP 76 of 2021, the case of the petitioners in
brief is that the petitioner No.1 is a private limited company and the
petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of the said company. The
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners took a loan from the respondent
No.2, but could not liquidate it during his lifetime. Ultimately, one
proceeding was initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), In which a
One Time Settlement (OTS) was made and the entire settled amount was
paid by the petitioners and thereafter, the recovery proceeding was
withdrawn and a Loan Liquidation Certificate (LLC) was issued by the
respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner No.1. It is contended by the
petitioners that the Collector, West Tripura created a Khatian in the name of
the respondent No.1 with reference to a purported sale certificate, which
was invalid, void and nullity in all respects. After getting information of such
creation of the Khatian, when the petitioners filed review petition before the
Collector, it was rejected. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed to the
Revenue Secretary, Government of Tripura, but that also has been rejected
without appreciating the fact properly and without exercising his jurisdiction
in accordance with law.
[9] Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the instant
CRP 76 of 2021 seeking following reliefs:
i) Admit the petition and call for records from the learned Revisional
court below and issue notice upon the respondents;
ii) To set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the
learned Revisional court below in the case No.04/Revision/Rev.
Secy./2016 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 confirming the
order of the Collector, West Tripura dated 26.12.2015 passed in Rev.
Case No.460 of 2014, with direction to restore the Khatian No.11904 of
Mouja-Agartala Sheet No.14, Sub-Division- Sadar, TK- Agartala East,
Revenue Circle- East Agartala, which was created in the name of the
petitioner No.1, or to create a fresh Khatian in that name by
cancelling/quashing the Khatian created in the name of the respondent
No.1.
[10] Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel while representing
petitioners in CRP 95 of 2022 submits that learned Court below committed
serious error of law and fact at the time of passing impugned order.
Learned Court below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that
the petitioners were not made parties in Case No. Civil Misc. (TPID) 09 of
2016 rendering the order dated 15.03.2021.
[11] It is also contended that learned Court below have failed to
appreciate the fact that the grounds taken in the Review Petition filed
before it were all supported by the documents on record which should not
have been kept aside by giving importance only to an untenable Sale
Certificate purportedly issued by DRT on 19.01.2011 when in the final order
of the DRT dated 25.11.2011, it would be found that the recovery
proceeding was closed in view of depositing of the amount by the
petitioners who were the certificate debtors in the proceeding before the
DRT, and since the order dated 25.11.2011 passed after the date of the
alleged Sale Certificate, the learned Court below could conclude that the
said sale certificate was a void and untenable document as the interim
order stands merged into the final order and also that no auction sale was
conducted by DRT at any point of time so no scope was there before DRT to
issue any sale certificate to anybody. Learned senior counsel, therefore,
urges this Court to set aside the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Civil
Misc. (Review) 05 of 2021 along with the order dated 15.03.2021 passed in
Civil Misc. (TPID) 09 of 2016.
[12] Learned senior advocate, Mr. SM Chakraborty while
representing the petitioners in CRP 76 of 2021 contends that the impugned
order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Revenue Secretary,
Government of Tripura in Revision case No.04/Revision/Rev./Secy./2016 is
a result of serious error of law and fact and is totally perfunctory and
mechanical in the eye of law. He submits that learned Court below
miserably failed to appreciate that after payment of the full OTS money by
the petitioner No.2, Smt. Babita Saha against the loan taken by her
predecessor-in-interest and issuance of Loan Clearance Certificate by the
respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner, there was no scope for any
third-party to claim any type of right, title and interest over the property of
the petitioners as per law. Learned senior counsel, therefore, urges this
Court to set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the
Revisional Court below in case No.04/Revision/Rev. Secy./2016 under
Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 confirming the order of the Collector,
West Tripura dated 26.12.2015 passed in Rev. Case No.460 of 2014.
[13] On the other hand learned G.A. assisted by Addl. G.A. on behalf
of the State respondents urges before this Court that the present CRPs filed
by the petitioners be dismissed.
[14] Since both the CRPs are arising out of a common issue and the
subject-matter involved is also common, the same are taken together for
disposal. CRP 95 of 2022 is a consequential lis in pursuance of the lis
involved in CRP 76 of 2021.
[15] The issue involved in CRP 76 of 2021 is the proceedings dated
12.03.2021 which is issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department is the
one relating to changes through the mutation and declaring by way of title
through the revenue records as Waris Finance International Limited as the
owner of the property. The revenue records have been changed and the
khatiyan has been issued. The same was done at the level of the District
Collector at the request made by the Waris Finance International Limited.
[16] The District Collector without causing any enquiry and
asserting the facts on the issue of pendency of order of the DRT has
straightway proceeded to issue the same, which is in gross violation of
principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.
[17] Insofar as CRP 95 of 2022 is concerned which is filed
challenging the proceedings of the District Judge dated 18.11.2022 in not
interfering with the proceedings dated 15.03.2021 in Civil Misc.(TPID) 09 of
2016 and allowing the revenue department to go ahead with the property
for auctioning. This Court finds that this is purely a consequential
proceeding in pursuance of the CRP 76 of 2021 and the Court below has
given very much weightage to the revenue proceedings and it has also gone
to the extent of observing that at this point of changing the mutation
proceeding is not proper on the strength of the objection made by the
petitioners. This opinion of the respondents cannot be appreciated as the
rights of the petitioners to properties are protected under Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India and by no means, the constitutional rights can be
infringed by any authority without following due process of law.
[18] It is a clear case where the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners has borrowed finance from North Eastern Development Finance
Corporation Limited (NEDFi) and at the level of proceedings in the DRT, the
petitioner has cleared the amounts and obtained LLC (Loan Liquidation
Certificate) from the financer and filed before the DRT resulting pending
proceedings been closed for the petitioners.
[19] It is strange that Waris finance International Limited has come
into the picture and claimed title on the property of the petitioners and the
respondent has changed the mutation proceedings without putting the
petitioners to notice. This is unheard of any departmental or judicial
proceedings. When the Waris Finance International Ltd. has no title over the
said property, the Government cannot attach the same and put to auction
to make good the depositors' amounts. When the Waris Finance
International Ltd. has no right & title, the same cannot be transferred to the
Government for auctioning. The action of the official respondents is
arbitrary & highhanded and has no legally enforceable right.
[20] In view of the same, this Court finds that the grave injustice has
been done with the petitioners and they are made to suffer all through.
[21] Thus, the proceedings under challenge in CRP 76 of 2021 and
consequential proceedings in CRP 95 of 2022 both are liable to be set aside
and accordingly, the same are set aside.
[22] With the above observation, the instant CRPs are allowed and
the same are disposed of.
As a sequel miscellaneous application(s) pending if any, shall
stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.02.03 16:03:55
+05'30'
