Tripura High Court
Defendant vs Legal Representatives Of Late Nabadwip ... on 25 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.17 of 2023
Sri Gopal Debnath,
son of Late Chandra Mohan Debnath,
resident of village: North Srirampur,
PS & PO: Puran Raj Bari, Belonia,
District- South Tripura, Tripura.
------ Defendant-Appellant
Versus
Legal representatives of late Nabadwip Chandra Das and late
Nandi Rani Das:
1. Sri Babul Das,
2. Sri Badal Das,
3. Sri Sajal Das,
4. Sri Ranjit Das,
All are sons of late Nabadwip Chandra Das and Late Nandi Rani
Das,
and resident of village: North Srirampur,
PO- Chottakhola - 799157, Dist: South Tripura;
5. Smt. Kanchan Das,
Daughter of late Nabadwip Chandra Das
and Late Nandi Rani Das and wife of Haridhan Das,
Vill & PO: North Barabil, 782481,
District: Karbi Anglong, Assam;
6. Smt. Sabitri Das,
Daughter of late Nabadwip Chandra Das
and Late Nandi Rani Das and wife of Sankar Das,
resident of Vill: Rabindranagar,
PO: Purba Pratapgarh,-799004, Distt: West Tripura;
7. Smt. Silpi Das,
Daughter of late Nabadwip Chandra Das
and Late Nandi Rani Das and wife of Maran Das,
resident of village: Sachindranagar Colony,
PO: Jirania, Dist: West Tripura;
8. Smt. Aparna Das,
Daughter of late Nabadwip Chandra Das
and Late Nandi Rani Das and wife of Paritosh Das,
resident of Vill & PO: Radhanagar, 799150, Dist: South Tripura;
------ Plaintiffs-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Daschowdhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alik Das, Adv,
Mr. Ashutosh De, Adv.
Date of hearing : 10.03.2025
Page 2 of 21
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 25.03.2025
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred challenging
the judgment dated 31.03.2023 and consequential decree dated
01.04.2023 delivered by Learned District Judge, South Tripura,
Belonia in connection with case No.TA No.17 of 2019. By the said
judgment and decree, Learned 1st Appellate Court has upheld the
judgment dated 31.07.2019 and decree dated 06.08.2019 delivered
by Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), South Tripura, Belonia in
connection with case No.TS No.44 of 2015.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Dilip Kumar Daschowdhury
appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant and also heard
Learned Counsel, Mr. Alik Das along with Learned Counsel, Mr.
Ashutosh De appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent-
plaintiffs.
3. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal let us discuss
about the subject matter of the dispute amongst the rival parties. The
predecessor of the respondents as plaintiffs filed one suit before the
Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), South Tripura, Belonia
which was numbered as TS No.44 of 2015 against the defendant i.e.
the present appellant herein for declaration of right, title and interest
and also for recovery of possession. It was alleged in the plaint that in
the year 1990 vide allotment order No.182 dated 30.12.1990, the
Page 3 of 21
respondent-plaintiffs were given allotment by the Government for the
land measuring 2.63 acres and the plaintiffs possessed the same
without any hindrances and interruption. It was further asserted that
during the revisional survey and settlement operation, the names of
the respondent-plaintiffs were duly recorded in the finally published
khatian but on 01.06.2015 the defendant i.e. the appellant herein
along with some of the local hooligans entered into the suit land of
the respondent-plaintiffs and planted some cashew nut trees therein.
As both the respondent-plaintiffs are old aged persons with a
physically handicapped son so they failed to resist the defendant-
appellant. In this regard, various communications were made to the
District Magistrate & Collector for protecting their person and property
but no response was taken. Hence the respondent-plaintiffs have filed
the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of
possession.
4. The present appellant as defendant contested the suit by
filing written statement denying the entire claim of the respondent-
plaintiff rather the appellant-defendant took the plea that the
respondent-plaintiffs never possessed the suit land and the defendant
was possessing the suit land since 1980. It was further submitted that
later on the appellant-defendant could know that the suit land was
allotted in the name of respondent-plaintiffs behind his back and
being requested by the respondent-plaintiffs, he allowed the
respondent-plaintiffs to reside in some portion of the land measuring
0.10 acres and the remaining portion of land remained under the
possession of the appellant-defendant. It was further submitted that
Page 4 of 21
knowing the fact of allotment of land in favour of the respondent-
plaintiffs, the appellant-defendant made a prayer before SDM, Belonia
for cancellation of allotment granted in favour of the respondent-
plaintiffs and on the basis of his prayer, RI of Rajnagar circle and
DCM, Rajnagar verified the land and submitted report to the SDM,
Belonia. The appellant-defendant also took the plea that the suit land
was all along under his possession and in the year 2004 he planted
cashew nuts and rubber plants therein. Hence by the written
statement, the appellant-defendant has prayed for dismissal of the
suit with cost.
5. Upon the pleading of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Trial Court below:
ISSUES
i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree
declaring their right, title and interest over the
suit land as specified in the schedule of the
plaint?
iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree
of recovery of vacant possession over the suit
land as specified in the schedule of the plaint?
iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cost or
any other relief or reliefs and if so up to what
extend?
To prove the issues, both the parties have adduced their
oral/documentary evidence on record. For the sake of convenience,
the name of the witness of the parties and their exhibited documents
are mentioned herein below:
Plaintiff‟s witness:
i) PW-1: Nabadweep Das
ii) PW-2: Dulal Das
iii) PW-3: Nepal Das
Defendant‟s witness:
i) DW-1: Gopal Debnath
Page 5 of 21
ii) DW-2: Krishnadhan Debnath
iii) DW-3: Jaharlal Debnath
Plaintiff‟s Exhibits:
i) Exbt.-1: Certified copy of khatian bearing
no.838 of Mouja Srirampur
ii) Exbt.-2: Memorandum sent to the DM for
protection of persons and property of the
Senior Citizen
iii) Exbt.-3: Memorandum sent to the SDM,
Belonia
iv) Exbt.-4: Acknowledgment receipt of the
memorandum
v) Exbt.-5: Certified copy of map relating to the
suit land
Defendant Exhibits:
i) Exbt.-A: Certified copy of inquiry report of
DCM in connection with Revenue Case
no.04/13
ii) Exbt.B: Certified copy of RI dated 27.08.12
iii) Exbt.C: Copy of notice in connection with
Revenue Case no.04/13
Finally, on conclusion of trial, Learned Trial Court by the
judgment dated 31.07.2019 decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs. The operative portion of the judgment and order
of Learned Trial Court below runs as follows:
ORDER
11. In the result the case of the plaintiffs it is
decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to right, title
and interest over the suit land measuring 2.63 acres
specifically mentioned in the schedule of the land
and Exbt.1(Khatian no.838, C/S Plot no.2559).
12. It is also decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled
to get recovery of possession of the suit land
described in schedule of the plaint from the
defendant namely Gopal Debnath. In case the
defendant is not handing over the vacant possession
to the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs can pray for
taking legal measures of getting the vacant
possession of the land.
13. The case is disposed of on contest.
Challenging that judgment, the present appellant herein
preferred appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the Court of Learned
District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia and after hearing both the
sides, Learned 1st Appellate Court by the judgment dated 31.03.2023
dated decree dated 01.04.2023 has dismissed the appeal filed by the
present appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, I would like to
refer herein below the operative portion of the judgment of the
Learned 1st Appellate Court:
15. In the circumstances above and considering the
evidences discussed so far, this court comes to the
conclusion that learned trial Court has rightly
decided these issues. So, I find no infirmity in the
judgment of learned trial Court.
16. In the result, I find no merit in the appeal to
interfere with the judgment and decree passed by
the learned trial Court in case No.T.S. 44 of 2015.
Therefore, the appeal merits rejection which I
hereby do.
17. Prepare appellate decree accordingly.
18. Send back the L.C. record with a copy of this
judgment and decree.
19. The case is thus disposed of on contest.
Challenging that judgment, the appellant has preferred this
appeal before this Court. At the time of admission of appeal by order
dated 03.07.2023, the following substantial questions of law were
formulated by this Court:
1. Whether a civil suit is maintainable when a
revenue proceeding is pending for cancellation of
the allotment order grated in favour of the
respondents?
2. Whether the findings and decisions of learned
Courts below suffer from any perversity?
3. Any other substantial question of law as may be
formulated during hearing?
6. In course of hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for the
appellant, Mr. D. K. Daschowdhury submitted that in view of Section
188 of Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, the suit filed
by the respondent-plaintiffs was not maintainable. Secondly, the
respondent-plaintiffs did never possess the suit land at any point of
time. Rather the appellant has been possessing the suit land since
1980 by growing cashew nuts and rubber plantation therein and on
the request of the respondent-plaintiffs, permission was given to
utilize 0.10 acres of land by the appellant and in the year 2012 for the
first time, the present appellant could know that the suit land was
given allotment behind the back of the appellant in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs. So, he approached to the SDM, Belonia for
cancellation of allotment granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs
and on the basis of his petition, the matter was enquired by Revenue
Inspector, Belonia and DC, Belonia who also found the possession of
the appellant over the suit land. It was further submitted by Learned
Counsel that the respondent-plaintiffs did never possess the suit land
at any point of time and the entire allotment was made behind the
back of the appellant-defendant and the matter of cancellation of
allotment is still pending before the revenue forum. Alternatively,
Learned Counsel further submitted that although as alleged by the
respondent-plaintiffs the suit land was allotted to them by the
authority, but they did not take any effort to utilize the suit land at
any point of time. Thus, the respondent-plaintiffs have violated the
Rule 12 of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of
Land) Rules, 1980. Finally, Learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that since there was no scope on the part of the Civil Court
to entertain the suit in view of the bar provided under Section 188 of
TLR and LR Act, 1960 and as such, he urged before this Court to allow
this appeal and also to set aside the judgments and decrees delivered
by Learned Courts below.
7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. Ashutosh De along
with Learned Counsel, Mr. Alik Das appearing on behalf of the
respondent-plaintiffs fairly submitted that both the Courts below gave
concurrent findings on the subject matter and there is no bar on the
part of the Civil Court to entertain any suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession, even if it is found that any revenue matter is
pending as because the revenue forum has got no authority to decide
and declare right, title, interest and to ensure recovery/restoration of
possession. Learned Counsel further submitted that settlement
operation passes through different stages. According to the appellant
herein, he took the plea that he was possessing the suit land since
1980 but surprisingly since 1980 to till 2012 he did not approach to
the revenue authority either for allotment of land or for cancellation of
allotment, if any. This story is not at all acceptable and believable.
Further, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs again
submitted that had the appellant be in possession of the suit land, in
that case, the possession of the appellant-defendant definitely could
reflect in the relevant column no.24 of the respective khatians. There
is no such evidence like that. More so, during survey operation he
could approach to the settlement authority showing his possession
and claim over the alleged suit land but there is no such evidence on
record like that he made any attempt in this regard. Further it was
also submitted that as alleged the appellant started producing cashew
nuts and other plants over the suit land but in this regard, no such
documentary evidence is proved by the appellant-defendant before
the Learned Trial Court. Even there is no evidence on record from the
side of the appellant that he procured the seeds from any
Government Department or store. Learned Counsel further submitted
that Learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing relied
upon report of RI and DCM. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-plaintiffs submitted that those enquiry reports have got
no basis because since it is the case of the respondent-plaintiffs that
the appellant-defendant forcefully evicted the respondent-plaintiffs
from the suit land during the year 2015 so it is quite natural that
while they visited the suit land, that time, definitely they might have
seen the possession of the appellant-defendant over the suit land.
Furthermore, their reports are also not supported by any oral
evidence, as such, according to Learned Counsel for the respondent-
plaintiffs that the Learned Trial Court after considering the
oral/documentary evidence on record rightly delivered the judgment
and decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs which has been
confirmed by the Learned Appellate Court and there is no substantial
question of law to be decided in favour of the present appellant
herein. So, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted
that no substantial question of law lies in favour of the appellant-
defendant and as such, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal with
costs. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-plaintiffs referred one citation reported in (2015) 2 TLR
661 [titled as Dhaneswar Debbarma v. State of Tripura and Anr.
dated 15.06.2015] wherein in para Nos.5 and 6 this High Court
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 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.
6. The finding of possession recorded by the civil
court, in our view, could not be set to be naught by
the revenue court. To this effect, the learned Single
Judge is absolutely correct. The civil court after
hearing both the parties has decided the matter.
Both the parties were given opportunity to lead
evidence and after recording evidence, the civil court
came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was
in possession of the suit land. This decree of the civil
court has to be challenged by filing an appeal before
the District Judge and cannot be nullified by a
revenue officer."
Referring the same, Learned Counsel for the respondent-
plaintiffs submitted that in view of the principle of the said citation,
the present appellant could pray for cancellation of allotment within a
reasonable period of 3(three) years but no step was taken. More so
according to the appellant, he started possessing the suit land since
1980 and as per the case of the respondent-plaintiffs, they got
allotment of the suit land in the year 1990 but during this stage,
revisional survey and settlement operation was completed but
surprisingly no step was taken by the appellant-defendant in any
stage of the settlement operation. So, the plea taken by the appellant
that he was possessing the suit land since 1980 is totally false,
concocted and manufactured story just to strengthen his case.
Learned Counsel also referred another citation of this High
Court reported in (2016) 1 TLR 166 [titled as State of Tripura and
Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Majumder and Ors. dated 08.12.2015]
wherein in para No.20, the co-ordinate bench of this High Court
further observed as under:
"20. The question that has been raised that whether
the civil court has got the jurisdiction to determine
the dispute which may fall within the ambit of
Section 15 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. Proviso to
Section 188 of the TLR & LR Act which has not been
printed in some of the subsequent editions even
though that was not deleted by any amendment,
clearly provides that when the dispute is relatable to
the question of title or determination of the title then
the bar as created under Section 188 of the TLR & LR
Act would not be applicable. Apart that, it is well
settled that when it is a question of title, the revenue
court does not have any jurisdiction, it is the civil
court and the civil court alone is to determine the
question of the title. If there arises a situation of co-
terminus jurisdiction then the option remains with
the person who would take the action at law to opt
the forum. As such the argument that has been
advanced by Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel cannot
be sustained. Apart that, another latent issue has
been made part of the substantial question of law is
that whether would extinguishment of the title of the
true owner when the true owner is the Government
and the land is the Government land be under
Section 27 read with Article 112 of the Limitation Act
1963 or can such prescription eclipse the provisions
of Section 15 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960? Section 15
of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 confers powers to evict the
illegal or unauthorised possessor from the
Government land. Section 27 or Article 112 if read
together clearly, it makes out a special provision.
The special provision always derogates the general
provision. If the law is not interpreted in that way,
the provisions of Section 27 or Article 112 of the
Limitation Act would be rendered otiose and no court
can interpret law to make it otiose. It must be made
workable. It has to be stated clearly that provisions
of Section 15 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 is subject to
provisions of Section 27 read with Article 112 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 and thus the first substantial
question is answered in the negative.
Having held so, this appeal is allowed partly in terms
of the above.
Prepare the decree accordingly and thereafter send
down the records."
Referring the same, Learned Counsel for the respondent
drawn the attention of the Court that there is no bar on the part of
the Civil Court to entertain any suit and to decide right, title, interest
and possession even if any revenue proceeding is pending also.
He also referred another citation of this Court reported in
(2017) 2 TLR 89 [titled as Jyotirmoy Ghosh and Anr. v.
Sudhangshu Das and Ors. dated 12.05.2017] wherein in para
No.10 this Court observed as under:
"10. On careful examination of the averments made
in the plaint as well as the reliefs claimed therein, it
is abundantly clear that the suit does not even
remotely have anything to do with, or about
alteration of any entry in the record of rights finally
published, revised, corrected or modified under any
of the provisions of Chapter V or Chapter VIII of TLR
& LR Act consequent upon the notification issued
under section 26 after the enforcement of the TLR &
LR Act. The suit so instituted is, as reproduced
above, is for declaration of title to, and recovery of
khas possession of, the suit land and has nothing to
do with settlement of land revenue or preparation of
records of rights or any entry therein, etc., for which
a suit or application is barred by Section 44 or
Section 188 of TLR & LR Act. Thus, I can, without
fear of contradiction, hold that the reliefs claimed by
the plaintiff are not the reliefs which can be granted
by a revenue court constituted under Section 81 of
TLR & LR Act. In other words, no revenue court can
conceivably grant the reliefs for a decree of
declaration of title to, or recovery of possession, of
the suit land; such a decree can be granted only by a
Civil Court. Moreover, I have perused the application
31-1-2007 filed by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under
Order 14, Rule (2(2) of the Code for trying an issue
relating the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain
the suit, but on examination of the application, it is
not possible to ascertain as to under what
circumstances the suit is not maintainable except
that they merely make a bold statement that the suit
is barred under Section 188 of the TLR and LR Act.
Something more, I think, is necessary for urging the
plea of non-maintainability of the suit. In this view of
the matter, I hold that the learned District Judge,
West Tripura did not err in interfering with the
judgment of the trial court and in holding that the
jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit is
not ousted. Therefore, the substantial question of
law is answered accordingly."
Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that there is
no bar for the Civil Court to decide and declare any title.
8. I have heard both the sides at length. Perused the records of
the Learned Court below. Admittedly in this case, there is no dispute
on record that the alleged suit land measuring 2.63 acres under Mouja
North Srirampur T.K. Sidhinagar Revenue Circle Rajnagar is recorded
in Khatian No.838 in the name of respondent-plaintiffs and there is no
dispute on record that the same was allotted in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs in the year 1990 by the respective allotment
authority and the said land measuring 2.63 was surveyed in plot
No.1104 part old and at present 2559. But as alleged by the appellant
herein that the appellant has been possessing the suit land since 1980
is totally a concocted and manufactured story because settlement
passes through different stages. Had the appellant be in possession of
the suit land definitely his name could have reflected in the respective
column of possessive either as permissive or forceful occupier, etc.
There is no evidence on record that the appellant as alleged by him is
possessing the suit land since 1980 and he filed any prayer to the
revenue authority either for allotment of the said land in his favour or
for cancellation of allotment of land granted in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs. So, the plea taken by the appellant that during
the year 2012 it came to his knowledge that the suit land was allotted
in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs cannot be accepted as a genuine
one. In this regard, I would like to refer herein below, the relevant
provision of Chapter 5 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 wherein from provision
Nos.42 to 46, the different stages regarding preparation of record of
right has been discussed which provides as under:
CHAPTER V.- LAND RECORDS
42. Preparation of record of rights.- It shall be the
duty of the survey officer to prepare a record of
rights for each village showing the area of each
survey number and other particulars and any other
record or register, in accordance with the rules made
under this Act:
[Provided that where for any reason a record of
rights cannot be prepared in respect of the entire
village it shall be lawful for the survey officer to
prepare separate records of rights for different areas
of such village and notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any rule made there under, a
record of rights, when finally published shall not be
called in question in any court on the ground that it
was not prepared in respect of the entire village.]
43. Publication of the record of rights.- (1) When a
record of rights has been prepared, the survey
officer shall publish a draft of the record in such
manner and for such period as may be prescribed
and shall receive and consider any objections which
may be made during the period of such publication,
to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom.
(2) When all objections have been considered and
disposed of in accordance with the rules made in this
behalf, the survey officer shall cause the record to be
finally published in the prescribed manner.
(3) Every entry in the record of rights as finally
published shall, until the contrary is proved, be
presumed to be correct.
44. Jurisdiction of civil courts to decide disputes.- (1)
When a notification under section 26 directing the
revenue survey of any local area with a view to
settlement of the land revenue and to the
preparation of a record of rights connected therewith
or the revision of any existing settlement or record
of rights in any local area has been published after
the enforcement of the Tripura Land Revenue and
Land Reforms (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979, no civil
court shall entertain any suit or application for the
settlement or determination of land revenue or the
incidence of any tenancy to which the record of
rights relates, and if any suit or application, in which
any of the aforesaid matters is in issue, is pending
before a civil court on the date of publication of the
notification in the Official Gazette, it shall be stayed
and it shall, on the expiry of the period for filing
application for revision under section 45, or when
such application has been filed within time on expiry
of the period prescribed under section 94 for filing an
appeal under section 93 against the order disposing
of such application or when an appeal has been filed
under the section within time, as the case may be, on
disposal of such appeal, abate so far as it relates to
any of the aforesaid matters.
(2) No civil court shall entertain any suit or
application concerning any land if it relates to
alteration of any entry in the record of rights finally
published, revised corrected or modified under any
of the provisions of this Chapter or Chapter VIII of
this Act consequent upon the notification issued
under section 26 after the enforcement of the
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Fifth
Amendment) Act, 1979.
45. Revision of entries in finally published record of
rights.- Any Revenue Officer specially empowered by
the State Government may, on application made to
him in this behalf or on his own motion, within one
year from the date of the final publication of the
record of rights, correct any entry in such record
which he is satisfied has been made owing to a bona
fide mistake:
Provided that no such entry shall be corrected
without giving the persons interested an opportunity
of being heard.
Explanation.- Every order under this section shall be
deemed to be an original order.
45A. Preparation of field index (khasra).- (1) As
soon as may be after the enforcement of the Tripura
Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Second
Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, the Revenue Officer
shall prepare and publish in the prescribed manner a
draft field index (khasra) in respect of every plot in a
village recording the status of the actual possessor
and the conditions on which he holds the land and
shall fix a date not less than fifteen days from the
date of such publication, for filing claims and
objections.
(2) The revenue officer shall, after giving the
persons who have filed claims and objections and
also the persons whose interests are likely to be
affected, an opportunity of being heard, prepare the
field index (khasra) and publish it in the prescribed
manner.
45B. Decision as to conflict in any case.-
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained an
entry regarding the status of the actual possessor of
a plot and the conditions on which he holds the land
in the field index (khasra) as finally published shall,
in case of conflict with an entry in the record of
rights, prevail and be transferred to the record of
rights for correction of such record under certificate
of such officer as may be prescribed in this behalf.
46. Register of mutations.- (1) There shall be
maintained for every village a register of mutations
in such form as may be prescribed.
(2) Any person acquiring by succession,
survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, gift,
mortgage, lease or otherwise any right in land or,
where such person acquiring the right is a minor or
otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person
having charge of his property, shall report his
acquisition of such right to the village accountant
within three months from the date of such
acquisition and the village accountant shall give at
once a written acknowledgement in the prescribed
form for such report to the person making it.
(3) The village accountant shall enter the substance
of every report made to him under sub-section (2) in
the register of mutations and also make an entry
therein respecting the acquisition of any right of the
kind mentioned in sub-section (2) which he has
reason to believe to have taken place and of which a
report has not been made under the said sub-section
and, at the same time, shall post up a complete copy
of the entry in a conspicuous place in the village and
shall give written intimation to all persons appearing
from the record of rights or the register of mutations
to be interested in the mutations and to any other
person whom he has reason to believe to be
interested therein.
(4) Should any objection to an entry made under
sub-section (3) in the register of mutations be made
either orally or in writing to the village accountant,
he shall enter the particulars of the objection in the
register of disputed cases and shall at once give a
written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for
the objection to the person making it.
(5) The objections made under sub-section (4) shall
be decided on the basis of possession by the
competent authority and orders disposing of
objections entered in the register of disputed cases
shall be recorded in the register of mutations by the
competent authority.
(6) After the entries in the register of mutations
have been tested and found correct, the entries shall
be transferred to the record of rights and shall be
certified by such officer as may be prescribed in this
behalf.
[Explanation.--This sub-section does not apply to
lease by which a bargadar acquires any right in
land.]
From the aforesaid provisions of the Land Revenue Act, it
appears that the present appellant herein did never approach to the
revenue authority or settlement authority either for allotment of the
suit land in his favour or for cancellation of allotment since from the
year 1980 to till the period of granting allotment in favour of the
respondent-plaintiffs in any manner. So, the contention of the
appellant is that the suit land was under his possession since 1980 is
nothing but a dire falsehood.
9. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant relied
upon Section 188 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 regarding jurisdiction of
the Civil Court. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer
herein below the provision of Section 188 of TLR & LR Act, 1980 which
provides as under:
188. Jurisdiction of civil courts excluded.- No suit or
other proceeding shall, unless otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, lie or be instituted in any civil
court with respect to any matter arising under and
provided for by this Act.
In this regard, I have gone through the citation of this High
Court referred by the respondent-plaintiffs. Those citations are very
much relevant for decision of this case as because the appellant-
defendant did not take any step for cancellation of allotment of the
suit land within reasonable period as discussed in para No.5 of the
judgment of this Court reported in (2015) 2 TLR 661 in
Dhaneswar Debbarma (supra). Furthermore, since the
respondent-plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of right, title
and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land, so, in my
considered view, the provision of Section 188 as alleged by Learned
Counsel for the appellant would not create any bar upon the Civil
Court to entertain any suit. The citations in this regard as referred by
Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs as mentioned above are
very much relevant and significant for the decision of this case. To
rebut the said plea, the appellant-defendant has failed to adduce any
rebuttable evidence on record either before the Learned Trial Court or
before the Learned 1st Appellate Court in course of hearing of
argument.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant in course of hearing of
argument also referred Rule 12 of TLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules,
1980 which provides as under:
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 or 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, utilize 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 condition as the circumstance of the case
may require.
Referring the same, Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to
draw the attention of the Court that the alleged allotment in favour of
the respondent-plaintiffs was liable to be cancelled since they failed to
utilize the land within two years from the date of allotment for the
purpose of which it is allotted.
According to the appellant-defendant, he came to know about
the allotment of land in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs in the year
2012 although this fact could not be proved by him. However, in the
given case, the allotment was granted in favour of the respondent-
plaintiffs in the year 1990 in view of the TLR & LR (Allotment of Land)
Rules, 1980. After the survey operation was over had the respondent-
plaintiffs did not cultivate or possess the suit land in that case
definitely the survey & settlement authority/Revenue authority during
their field operation could initiate suo motu proceeding against the
respondent-plaintiffs but there is no such evidence on record like that.
Even if we believe that the appellant-defendant was in possession of
the suit land since 1980 but surprisingly since 1980 to till 2012 no
step was taken by him for allotment of the suit land in his favour or
for cancellation of allotment. So, this story appears to be not
convincing and trustworthy and has got no basis and the same cannot
be accepted.
11. I have also seen the evidence on record of the parties, it
appears that to substantiate the issues before the Learned Trial Court
both the parties have adduced oral/documentary evidence on record.
In this regard, I would like refer herein below the relevant provision of
Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act which provides as under:
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.- When
the terms of any such contract, grant or other
disposition of property, or any matter required by
law to be reduced to the form of a document, have
been proved according to the last section, no
evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be
admitted, as between the parties to any such
instrument or their representatives in interest, for
the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or
subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1).- Any fact may be proved which would
invalidate any document, or which would entitle any
person to any decree or order relating thereto; such
as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due
execution, want of capacity in any contracting party,
want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or
law.
Proviso (2).- The existence of any separate oral
agreement as to any matter on which a document is
silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms,
may be proved. In considering whether or not this
proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the
degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3).- The existence of any separate oral
agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the
attaching of any obligation under any such contract,
grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4).- The existence of any distinct
subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any
such contract, grant or disposition of property, may
be proved, except in cases in which such contract,
grant or disposition of property is by law required to
be in writing, or has been registered according to the
law in force for the time being as to the registration
of documents.
Proviso (5).- Any usage or custom by which incidents
not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually
annexed to contracts of that description, may be
proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would
not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the
express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).- Any fact may be proved which shows in
what manner the language of a document is related
to existing facts.
Since the documentary evidences clearly establishes the
right, title, interest of the respondent-plaintiffs over the suit land so
by adducing oral evidence there is no scope to discard the title of the
respondent-plaintiffs over the suit land until it is rebutted and the
present appellant herein could not adduce any other better title than
the respondent-plaintiffs to substantiate his claim over the suit land.
Thus, after hearing both the sides, it appears that there is no
substantial questions of law made out in this case to be decided in
favour of the appellant-defendant, as such, the present appeal is
liable to be dismissed with cost.
Furthermore, I have also seen the order of SDM, Belonia,
South Tripura in connection with Revenue case No.4 of 2013 dated
06.09.2024. By the said order, Learned SDM, Belonia has dismissed
the proceeding and rejected the application for cancellation of
allotment filed by the present appellant herein based on the judgment
of the Civil Court and in my considered view, Learned SDM also rightly
decided and disposed of the matter in favour of the respondent-
plaintiffs.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the present appellant-
defendant stands dismissed being devoid of merit with costs. The
judgment dated 31.03.2023 and decree dated 01.04.2023 delivered
by Learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with
case No.TA No.17 of 2019 confirming the judgment dated 31.07.2019
and decree dated 06.08.2019 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No.TS No.44
of 2015 is hereby upheld and accordingly, the same is affirmed.
Prepare decree accordingly.
The respondent-plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as granted
by the Learned Trial Court.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment to
the respective Courts.
Since the appeal is dismissed, so the application for adducing
evidence filed by the appellant-defendant also accordingly stands
dismissed.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
Date: 2025.03.27
DATTA 14:58:26 -07'00'
Deepshikha
