Sri Jogendra Chandra Roy vs The State Of Tripura
2024 Latest Caselaw 3 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Jogendra Chandra Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2024

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                    RSA No.25 of 2022
     Sri Jogendra Chandra Roy,
     Son of late Upendra Chandra Roy,
     Resident of 2 No. Gautam Nagar,
     P.O. Bishalgarh, P.S. Bishalgarh,
     District: Sepahijala, Tripura
     Aged about 66, by profession: Pensioner,
     By faith Hindu, Citizen of India
                                     ----Plaintiff-Appellant (s)
                          Versus
1.   The State of Tripura,
     Represented by the Secretary,
     Land and Revenue Department,
     Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban,
     P.S. New Capital Complex,
     Agartala, West Tripura
2.   The District Magistrate & Collector,
     Sepahijala, P.O. & P.S. Bisramganj,
     District: Sepahijala, Tripura
                               ----Defendant-Respondents (s)

3. Sri Sashi Mandal, Son of late Kali Kumar Mandal,

4. Smt. Sumati Mandal, Wife of Sri Sashi Mandal,

both are residents of 2 no. Gautam Nagar, P.O. Bishalgarh, P.S. Bishalgarh, District: Sepahijala, Tripura

---- Proforma-Respondent (s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Chowdhury, Adv.

For Respondent(s)     :   None

Date of Hearing       :   04.01.2024

Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order :      10.01.2024

Whether fit for
Reporting             :   YES





         HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                     Judgment & Order

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is

directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2022 and decree

dated 08.03.2022 delivered in Title Appeal No.6 of 2019

passed by Learned District Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura

affirming the judgment dated 17.06.2019 and decree dated

27.06.2019 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sepahijala, Sonamura in T.S. 171 of 2017.

02. The gist of this appeal in brief is that the present

appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right title

and interest and confirmation of possession and perpetual

injunction over the suit land as described of this schedule of

the plaint before the court of the Learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Sepahijala Sonamura. The case of the

appellant-plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court was that

the suit land measuring 0.19 acre appertaining to old C.S.

Plot No.310/P corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 675 under

Mouja and Tehesil Bishalgarh of Khatian No.3968 was

originally a Government khas land and in the year 1985 the

suit land was allotted in favour of the possessor namely

Sashi Mandol and his wife Sumati Mandol for agriculture

purpose and after allotment ROR was prepared in their

name in Khatian No.3968 which was finally published on

20.09.1994. According to the appellant-plaintiff in the year

1991 said Sashi Mandol and his wife sold out the said

quantum of land i.e. 0.19 acres to one Smt. Chaya Rani

Saha wife of Sri Kebal Saha of Muraibari, Bishalgarh by

execution of two registered sale-deeds bearing No.1-1947

and 1-1948 dated 13.05.1991 due to their financial need

and after purchase said Chaya Rani Saha got possession

over the land and thereafter in the year 1992 said Chaya

Rani Saha again sold out the aforesaid entire land to the

appellant-plaintiff Jogendra Chandra Roy by executing one

registered sale-deed bearing No.1-603 dated 10.02.1992

and the present appellant having entered into possession

constructed six numbers of mud wall hut along with two

sanitary latrine, two numbers water tank, bathroom etc. On

the suit land domestic electric connection was procured. The

appellant also got water supply connection from Bishalgarh

Municipal Council and he had possessed the suit land

without any interruption from any corner.

03. It was the further case of the appellant-plaintiff

that his application for mutation was rejected in the year

2010 on the ground that it was a Government khas land.

Later on, after obtaining khatian of the suit land he found

that his homestead land has been recorded in Government

khas Khatian No.1/288 most illegally beyond his knowledge.

Then he preferred one revision petition under Section 95 of

TLR & LR Act, 1960 before the DM & Collector, Sepahijala

District with a prayer to record the said land in his name.

The matter was inquired by the Revenue officials of

Bishalgarh and it was revealed that the suit land was

initially recorded jointly in the name of Sashi Mandol and

Sumati Mandol in Khatian No.3968 in equal share but later

on, the said land was recorded in the Government khas

Khatian.

04. The respondent-defendant No.2 published one

notification in Dainik Sambad on 13.03.2016 for widening,

repairing, maintaining and alteration of the NH-44 for which

the appellant-plaintiff made objection and thereafter in the

land acquisition proceeding the respondent-defendant No.2

asked the original allottees to appear on 08.11.2016 and

that time the plaintiff-appellant appeared and submitted all

the relevant documents with prayer for correction of notice

in favour of the appellant-plaintiff as awardee instead of

original allotees (pro-defendants). It was informed to him

that until and unless the record of rights be corrected in his

name he will not be entitled to get any compensation as

award against the suit land. After that by order dated

11.05.2017 the respondent-defendant No.2 dismissed the

Revenue Case No.07 of 2016 preferred by the appellant-

plaintiff under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act with a direction to

file fresh petition under Section 11 (3) of the Act for which

the present appellant-plaintiff filed another petition under

Section 11(3) of TLR & LR Act, 1960, which is still pending

for disposal before the District Collector Sepahijala.

05. It was further mentioned by the appellant-

plaintiff that on 27.12.2016 he served one demand notice

under Section 80 of the CPC to the respondent-defendants

claiming right, title, and interest over the suit land by virtue

of his registered sale-deed and uninterrupted possession. In

response, the respondent-defendants by a letter dated

28.01.2017 informed him that the matter was referred to

SDM, Bishalgarh for inquiry and report. It was also

submitted by the appellant-plaintiff that the respondent-

defendant No.2 awarded only surface damage of cost of

trees and huts but did not consider the value of land which

was claimed by him and after that on 20.10.2017 the

officials of the respondent-defendants threatened him to

evict from the suit land and thereafter the present

appellant-plaintiff filed the suit before the Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Sonamura. The respondent-defendants

inspite of receiving summons did not contest the suit nor

they filed any written statement so suit was proceed ex-

parte against all the defendants.

06. To decide the suit Learned Court below framed in

total six number of issues and posted the case for evidence.

The issues are as follows:

"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether plaintiff acquired perfect right, title & interest over the suit land by way of purchase?

(iii) Whether conversion of the original allotted land into Govt. Khas land by defendant No.2 was arbitrary, illegal and void?

(iv)Whether the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit land?

(v)Whether plaintiff is entitled to get decree of declaration of his right, title & interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land?

(vi)Whether plaintiff is entitled to get decree of mandatory injunction to direct defendants to acquire the suit land of plaintiff as lawful owner along with consequential relief of perpetual injunction and cost?"

To substantiate the issues the present appellant

himself examined as PW-1 and relied upon some

documentary evidence which were marked as Exbt.1-14 and

Learned Trial Court by a judgment finally dismissed the suit

by order dated 17.06.2019 which is reproduced below:

"In the result, it is hereby held that the plaintiff has not succeeded to establish the cause of action for the suit and the suit is not allowed. Plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree of declaration of his right, title, interest over the suit land and confirmation of his possession thereon. Plaintiff is also not entitled to get mandatory injunction to direct defendants to acquire the suit land as per law. Plaintiff is also not entitled to get decree or perpetual injunction in respect to the suit land. Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed on contest."

07. Challenging the judgment the present appellant-

plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court

and the Learned First Appellate Court by judgment dated

25.02.2022 uphold the judgment passed by the Learned

Court below and accordingly decree was drawn up. The

operative portion of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in

Title Appeal No.6 of 2019 of the Learned First Appellate

Court is reproduced below:

* * * * * *

"21. In view of the above, the findings and decision the appeal filed by the appellant vide Title Appeal-06 of 2019 is hereby dismissed on contest.

22. The parties shall bear their own cost.

23. Prepare decree accordingly.

24. Send back the LC record along with the copy of this judgment to the Ld. Court below immediately.

25. Make necessary entry in the T.R."

08. Challenging the judgment of the First Appellate

Court the present appellant-plaintiff has preferred this

second appeal before the High Court. In course of admission

of appeal the following substantial question of law was

framed by order dated 08.08.2022:

"Whether finding of the Appellate Court is perverse?"

09. At the time of hearing Learned counsel for the

appellant has fairly submitted that the present appellant-

plaintiff at the time of filing of the original suit also filed one

injunction petition against the respondent-defendants

before the Learned court below and the Learned Trial Court

by order dated 05.04.2018 passed in Misc. Injunction

109/2017 restrained the defendants-respondent from

entering into the suit land till disposal of the original suit.

10. It was further submitted that the respondent-

defendants never disputed the possession of the present

appellant-plaintiff or his predecessor over the suit land but

the State-respondents beyond his knowledge most

arbitrarily made the suit land as khas which was totally

illegal and not binding upon the appellant-plaintiff. Learned

counsel also submitted that the original allottees transferred

their land to one Chaya Rani Saha by two registered deeds

in the year 1991 and after that in the year 1992 the present

appellant-plaintiff purchased the suit land from said Chaya

Rani Saha and got possession over the said land and since

then he started possessing the suit land by different acts of

possession. But the state-respondents without affording any

opportunity to him beyond his back made the suit land as

khas land and before the LA Collector the present appellant-

plaintiff approached for payment of compensation in respect

of suit land. But the LA Collector only gave surface damage

to him without any payment of compensation of the

acquired land i.e. the suit land to the present appellant-

plaintiff. It was also submitted that at the time of execution

of deeds also the authority concerned never raised any

objection regarding transfer of land and no third party

claimed the suit land but the Learned Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court without considering the right, title,

interest and possession of the present appellant-plaintiff

dismissed the suit without any basis and urged before this

court to set aside the judgment passed by Learned First

Appellate Court.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant also drawn the

attention of the court that after purchase of the suit land he

constructed few huts and got water connection from

Bishalgarh Municipal Council and electric connection form

the Electric Department which shows his overall constructive

possession over the suit land. But it was surprising as to

how the state-respondents without any information to him

recorded the suit land as Government khas land. So learned

counsel in summing up prayed before the court to allow the

appeal setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate

Court with a further direction to the respondents to arrange

for adequate payment of compensation to the present

appellant-plaintiff for acquisition of the suit land.

12. In this case Ms. A. Banik, Learned counsel

appeared on behalf of the respondent-defendants No.1 & 2.

But inspite of allowing several opportunities she failed to

satisfy the court by producing any documentary evidence on

record as to how the suit land was made as khas land. Thus

it appears to rebut the contention of the present appellant-

plaintiff, the state-respondents have/had got no legal basis

to counter the case of the present appellant.

13. I have gone through the judgment of the

Learned First Appellate Court as well as the Learned Trial

Court. It appears to me that the Learned Trial Court below

came to the conclusion of the suit on the ground that the

present appellant-plaintiff could not establish his perfect

right, title and interest over the suit land and also the

present appellant-plaintiff could not satisfy the court that

the conversion of original land to government khas land was

illegal and void and ultimately dismissed the suit and the

Learned First Appellate Court also in the same line uphold

the judgment of the Learned Trial Court below. I have

further gone through the exhibited documents relied upon

by the present appellant-plaintiff before the Learned court

below. As I have already stated that there is no dispute on

record in respect of possession of the plaintiff-appellant over

the suit land. Exbt.-1 is the original khatian bearing

No.3968 in the name of original allottee Sashi Mandol and

Sumati Mandol. Exbt-2, 3 and 4 are the corresponding title

deeds on the basis of which the present appellant-plaintiff

got title over the suit land. Exbt.5 is the notification in

respect of acquisition of the suit land along with the other

lands. Exbt-6 is the petition for correction of record under

Section 95 of TLR & LR Act after the suit land was recorded

in the khas khatian. Exbt.7B the inquiry report of RI

Bishalgarh from which it appears that the suit land was

under the possession of the appellant-plaintiff. Exbt-7C is

the report of the Tehesildar, Bishalgarh T.K. to the Deputy

Collector & Magistrate Bishalgarh from which it appears that

the suit land was under the possession of the appellant-

plaintiff but the same was cancelled by letter

No.9939/F.7(14)-SDM/BLG/ALLOT/08 dated 13.12.2010 and

recorded in khatian No.1/288. Exbt-8 is the order of

Learned District Collector, Sepahijala District Bishramganj

dated 11.05.2017 in Revenue Case No.07/2016. From the

said order it appears that the suit land has been recorded in

Government khas khatian No.1/288, but the appellant-

plaintiff was in peaceful possession over CS. Plot No.675

(suit land). That petition was rejected and the appellant-

plaintiff was asked to approach to the competent authority

under Section 11(3) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. Exbt-9 is

the copy of petition filed under Section 11(3) of TLR & LR

Act, 1960 by the present appellant-plaintiff dated

25.09.2017 before the Learned District Magistrate and

Collector.

14. It is the admitted position that the present

appellant-plaintiff was all along in the possession of the suit

land since from the year 1992 after his purchase the same

from one Chaya Rani Saha. Exbt-2, 3 and 4 are the title

deeds on the basis of which the present appellant-plaintiff

got title over the suit land. The appellant-plaintiff could not

prove the original order of allotment issued in the name of

said Sashi Mandol and Sumati Mandol by the Revenue

Authority. But from Exbt-1 i.e. Khatian No.3968 it is crystal

clear that the suit land was recorded and allotted in favour

of said Sashi Mandol and his wife as allottee by the

authority showing land measuring 0.19 acres, C.S. Plot

No.675 under Mouja and Teheshil Bishalgarh. After the

introduction of TLR & LR Act, 1960, the State-Government

also framed two separate rules for regulating the allotment

of land to any person and Section-14 of TLR & LR Act, 1960

is the source of power for allotment of land to an individual

which is produced as under:

"14. Allotment of land.-(1) The Collector may allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act; and such rules may provide for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15.

(2) The [State Government] shall have power-

(a) to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as may be prescribed, or

(b) to entrust the management of any such land or any rights therein to the gram panchayat of the village established under any law for the time being in force.

(3) The rules under sub-sections (1) and (2) for allotment of land shall provide for giving preference to the members of the co-operative farming societies formed by marginal farmers, landless agricultural labourers, jumias and members of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in allotting land."

15. From the aforesaid provision of law further it

appears that the Government at the time of introduction of

the Act made provision for framing of rules. Accordingly,

after the introduction of the Act in the year 1960 two

allotment rules as to the regulating of allotment of land

were framed and in the State all the allotment orders issued

is/are governed by those rules. Now for the sake of

convenience, I would like to refer herein below the relevant

rules of Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of

Land) Rules, 1962:

"15. Conditions of allotment:

(1) An allotment of land under sub-section (I) of section 14 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely

(i) the land shall not be transferred by the allottee within ten years from the date of allotment, without the written consent of the Collector: Provided that the land may be mortgaged to a co-operative society, a co-

operative bank or land mortgage bank or the Government without such consent;

(ii) an allottee on giving three months‟ notice before the end of an agricultural year and on payment of all Government dues in respect of the allotted land upto the end of the said agricultural year may surrender the land allotted to him. On such surrender being made, the land shall revert to the Government‟

(iii) in case the allottee is a co-operative farming society and the registration of such society is cancelled within ten years from the date of allotment the land allotted to such society shall thereupon be deemed to have been resumed by the Government and the Government shall not be liable to pay any compensation;

Any person holding or retaining possession of such land thereafter shall be deemed to be a trespasser;

(iv) in case of waste land allotted for agricultural purposes, the allottee shall bring the whole area under cultivation within three years from the date of allotment;

(v) the allottee shall be liable to pay such amount as land revenue as may assessed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder;

(vi) the allottee shall within the time fixed in the allotment order pay to the Government an amount equal to the market value of the trees and structures, if any, standing on the land;

(vii) the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled if, except in cases falling under clause(iv), the land is not used within 2 years of the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted or if the allottee commits a breach of any of the conditions of allotment or the provisions of these rules and the Collector may re- enter on the land:

Provided that no such cancellation or re-entry shall be made unless the allottee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard‟

(viii) no compensation shall be payable by the Government on account of cancellation of any allotment or re-entry by the Collector under these rules, but if the allottee has built any consdtructions on the land he shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to remove the same."

Further, the relevant rule under The Tripura Land

Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules,

1980, is also reproduced below:

"12. Conditions of allotment.-(1)Any allotment of land under sub-section (1) of section 14 and in accordance with these rules, shall be further subject to the following conditions and also the conditions specified in the allotment order which shall be, as nearly as possible, in the form at Appendix „B‟

(i) The land will be heritable but not alienable without the written consent of the collector granted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee that may be set up by the Government;

Provided that the land may be mortgaged to the Government, or a Co-operative Society or a Bank of such institution as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State Government from time to time;

(ii) The allottee may surrender the land in the manner specified in the allotment order.

(iii) The allottee shall bring the whole area under cultivation within the time specified in the allotment order.

(iv) The allottee shall be liable to pay premium land revenue and taxes as specified in the allotment order.

(V) The allottee shall be entitled to plant trees on his land to enjoy the products thereof and to fell, utilise or dispose of the timber of any trees on his land.

(vi) The allotment will be liable to be cancelled for breach of any of the provisions of the Act, the rules or any of the conditions of allotment.

(2) The Collector shall have the power to delete any of the conditions specified in Appendix „B‟

and/or insert any other condition as the circumstance of the case may require."

From the aforesaid Rules further it appears that

in framing the rules certain conditions have been mentioned

as to how allotment of land given to a person may be

cancelled. It is already submitted that the state-respondents

neither contested the suit before the Trial Court nor filed

any written statement before the Learned Trial Court.

Although Learned GP before the First Appellate Court

appeared on behalf of the state-respondents but in either of

the courts no oral/documentary evidences were adduced by

the state-respondents to counter the case of the appellant-

plaintiff. Before the High Court also inspite of allowing

opportunity the state-respondents failed to produce any

documentary evidence to substantiate as to how the suit

land was entered in Government khas khatian without

affording any opportunity either to the original allottees or

to the present appellant of this case, because by virtue of

purchase the present appellant-plaintiff had entered into the

shoe of the original allottees as a lawful owner.

16. In course of hearing Learned counsel for the

appellant relied upon few citations. In Writ Appeal No.4 of

2015 dated 15.06.2015 in Dhaneswar Debbarma vs.

State of Tripura and Anr. reported in (2015) 2 TLR 661,

in para-5 observed as under:

5. At the outset, we may notice that the land was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner in the year 1988.

Assuming that there was any error in the allotment, such allotment should have been challenged within a

reasonable time. Allotments cannot be set aside WA. No.4 of 2015 Page 4 of 5 after expiry of reasonable period. What is a reasonable period may depend on the facts of a particular case but normally the reasonable period will not exceed 3 years at the most. It is only in cases where fraud is proved that the period of limitation will start from the date of discovery of the fraud. Otherwise within a reasonable period, proceedings to cancel allotment must start. A person who is allotted land develops the land by dint of his hand work. He invests money and time on the land. After he has developed the land the allotment cannot be set aside after two decades on the ground that the objector had a better claim to the land."

Referring the aforesaid citation Learned counsel has

drawn attention of the court that the allotment order was

issued in favour of the original allottee Sashi Mandol and his

wife in the year 1985 and khatian was prepared in the name

of the original allottees in Khatian No.3968 and that was

finally published. But the state-respondents without any

notice/opportunity either to the original allottees or to the

subsequent purchasers cancelled the said allotment order

arbitrarily, in the year 2010 i.e. almost after 25 years which

was totally illegal and not permissible according to law.

More so, from Exbt-11B that is the reply of LA Collector to

the Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, it appears

that the suit land measuring 0.19 acres covering hal plot

No.675/P, sabak plot No.310 is recorded in the C.L.R. as

Govt. khas land under Khatian No.1/288 and the said land

was acquired for development of NH-44 under Plot No.675/P

in respect of Khatian No.1/288 but physically occupied by

the appellant-plaintiff and he has already been awarded cost

of structures and trees under Apportionment Serial No.55 in

respect of LA Case No.03/NH/BLG/2017. The appellant

approached the competent court for correction of title under

Section 11(3) of TLR & LR Act, 1960, but no order so far is

passed in the said proceeding till today.

17. Here in the case at hand, after hearing Learned

counsel for the appellant-plaintiff as well as after going

through the judgment of the Learned courts below and also

the exhibited documents it appears that the suit land was

originally allotted in the name of one Sashi Mandol and his

wife Sumati Mandol and khatian was created in their name.

Thereafter they transferred the suit land in the name of one

Chaya Rani Saha by two separate deeds and said Chaya

Rani Saha by another title deed transferred the suit land in

the name of present appellant-plaintiff which was later on

acquired by the Government for construction of NH-44. As

already stated, the state-respondents inspite of allowing

opportunity did not contest the suit before the Learned Trial

Court below nor produced any documentary evidence.

Before the court also, to substantiate as to how the

allotment order was cancelled, nothing was produced. There

is also no evidence on record that the original allottees

obtained allotment after playing fraud upon the

Government. Even the registering authority of State-

respondents had allowed the registration of sale-deeds

without any objection. So after elapsing of the long period

where the land was under constructive possession of the

present appellant-plaintiff there was no scope on the part of

the state-respondents to cancel the order of the allotment.

In view of the judgment of this High Court as discussed

above further it appears that the authority of the state-

respondents most arbitrarily without any basis and without

affording any opportunity either to the original allottee or to

the subsequent purchasers including the present appellant-

plaintiff cancelled the allotment order wrongly and illegally

recorded the said land in Government khas khatian. Learned

courts below at the time of delivering the judgment did not

consider those aspects and merely on the ground that the

appellant-plaintiff could not produce any documentary

evidence showing his perfect title over the suit land

dismissed the suit which in my considered opinion Learned

Court below has without application of proper mind have

decided the matter against the appellant-plaintiff. So reeling

back to the substantial question of law it appears that the

authority of the state-respondents after elapsing of 32 years

had no authority to cancel the order of allotment in favour

of the original allottees Sashi Mandol and his wife and as

such the present appellant-plaintiff being the purchaser of

the suit land by way of his purchase has acquired valid

right, title and interest over the suit land is entitled to due

compensation from the authority for acquisition of the land,

as the suit land has already been taken over by the

Government for construction of NH-44. Further, no step was

taken by the authority concerned to cancel the order of

allotment within three years as interpreted and decided by

this court in the aforesaid judgment.

18. In view of the aforesaid analysis of both factual

and legal aspects of the judgments it is my considered view

the present appellant has been able to establish his valid

right, title and interest over the suit land. Thus the appeal

filed by the present appellant is hereby allowed with costs.

The judgment dated 25.02.2022 and decree dated

08.03.2022 delivered in Title Appeal No.6 of 2019 passed by

Learned District Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura is hereby set

aside. The appellant is also entitled to due compensation

from the Respondent No.2 in respect of acquisition of the

suit land.

Prepare the decree accordingly and send down

the LCRs along with a copy of the judgment.

JUDGE

MOUMIT Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA Date: 2024.01.12 00:46:00 -08'00' Moumita