Tripura High Court
Sri Gopal Debnath vs State Of Tripura & Ors on 21 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.421 of 2023
Sri Gopal Debnath Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K Daschoudhury, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl.GA.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 21.06.2024
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Admit this writ petition;
ii. Issue notice upon the respondents;
iii. Issue in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.06.2023
passed in Case No. 39/2nd Appeal/REV/P Secy/2022 by respondent 1
upholding the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by learned respondent 2
in case No. 2/2021 and the order dated 11.09.2020 passed in case No.
02/2018 by the respondent 3 cancelling the order of allotment of land
measuring 0.11 acre surveyed in plot no. 1120 and recorded in Khatian
No.1559 of mouza Radhakishorepur Reserve Forest;
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus asking the respondents to show cause as to
why the order of allotment granted by the Collector in favour of the
petitioner as back as in the year 1997 AD shall not be restored in favour
of the petitioner;
v. Issue rule of the Hon'ble High Court after considering the reply of the
respondents and hearing both the parties in the light of the items(iii)
and (iv) above;
vi. Pass any other writs/orders as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit and
proper;
vii. Grant cost of the writ petition;"
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was granted allotment
of land measuring 0.11 acre surveyed in hal plot no. 1120 corresponding to old
plot no. 661 classified as chara ( tilla) and incorporated in Khatian No. 1559 of
mouza Radhakishorepur Reserve Forest commencing from 1st day of Baishakha,
1404 BS corresponding to 1997 AD by the Collector of erstwhile South Tripura
District on payment of due premium. Respondent no. 4 (Sri Narayan Debnath)
along with others made a prayer before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(respondent no3) against that allotment and by an order dated 11.09.2020 the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate cancelled the order of allotment after 23 years of
granting allotment. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on
07.08.2021 as per provisions of section 93(1)(b) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 to
the DM & Collector. But the said authority without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to adduce any evidence to counter the report of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate & relying on the same dismissed the appeal by an order dated
29.07.2022. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred second appeal
under section 93(2) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 wherein the Ld. Principal
Secretary by an order dated 03.06.2023 upheld the order of DM & Collector
and rejected the appeal. Hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. DK Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA, appearing for Official
respondent No. 1,2 and 3.
4. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel submits before this Court that
his client was granted with allotment of land measuring 0.11 acre surveyed in
hal plot no. 1120 corresponding to old plot no. 661 after due premium but the
allotment order was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after 23 years
of granting allotment. Thereafter, his client filed two appeals before the Court
of Ld. District Collector and the Court of Ld. Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department wherein the Ld. District Collector relying on the enquiry report of
Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the appeal and the Ld. Principal Secretary
also upheld the order of Ld. District Collector and rejected the appeal.
5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for
the respondent-State submits before this Court that as per allotment rules
within 02 years a person has to occupy the land but the fact is the petitioner
never possessed the land. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel also submits that a
landless person can be given allotment but the petitioner has 03 lands.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
7. It is seen from the office note dated 18.07.2023 and 25.07.2023
that notices have been served upon the respondent no. 4. Since than there is
no representation from the respondent no. 4. Hence the order has been
passed against the respondent no. 4 as ex-parte.
8. In the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that the
petitioner is having alternative lands two in his name and one in the name of
his spouse. Thus, the petitioner violated Rule 12 and Appendix -B of The
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 after
allotment of the land. So his allotment order was rightly cancelled by the
respondents.
9. The appeal of the petitioner was annulled on the basis of the
report of the respondent No.3 (SDM, Udaipur) and verbal statement of both the
parties. Besides from the enquiry report of the respondent No.3 vide
No.F.5(26)/SDM/UDP/REV/CA/2021-2211701 dated 04.03.2022, it has been
explored that the petitioner and his family members have owned 0.78 acres of
land of the following land schedule except and apart from the impugned land:-
Mouja Khatian No. R/S Plot No. Area in acre Recorded in the
name of
R.K. Pur R.F 133 986/P 0.27(as per Share) Gopal Debnath,
S/o Pran Ballav
Debnath( Share
of total land
measuring-
0.32)
552 1074 0.31 Sadhana Rani
Debnath, W/o-
Gopal Debnath
Tepania 1271 124/2737 0.20 Gopal
Debnath,S/o-
Pran Ballav
Debnath.
Total 0.78
10. To which there is no denial in the re-joinder. Hence this Court
draws adverse inference against the petitioner for having taken paper
possession and not the physical possession of the property attracts
disqualification to continue the land.
11. This Court finds credence in the concurrent findings of the order
dated 29.07.2022 and 03.06.2023 of the Ld. Appellate Court below and the
order in original dated 11.09.2020 which is passed by the Court of Ld. Sub-
Divisional Magistrate stands affirmed. In view of the same the cancellation
which is affected holds weightage and there are no infirmities. Accordingly, the
writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous
application(s) pending if any, shall stand closed.
JUDGE
Paritosh
SABYASAC by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2024.07.03
03:20:20 +05'30'
