[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Mukul Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 2 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) 55/2026
1. Sri Mukul Sarkar, son of Sri Chandrasekhar Sarkar, resident of
Barjala, P.O.-Barjala, P.S.-West Agartala, District- West Tripura;
2. Smt. Prativa Baishya Sarkar, wife of Sri Mukul Sarkar, resident
of Barjala, P.O.-Barjala, P.S.-West Agartala, District- West Tripura;
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, PO-
Kunjaban, PS-New Capital Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura;
2. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District,
Office of the DM & Collector, Office Lane, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, District- West Tripura;
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 02.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (ORAL)
02/02/2026
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners
have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to
why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for calling for the records,
lying with the official respondents, for rendering substantial and conscionable justice to the
petitioners;
ii) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or
in the nature thereof, mandating/directing the Respondents to dispose of the Letters dated
11.12.2025 and 29.12.2025 (Annexure-4 supra), and accord permission to the petitioners to sell
their allotted land;
iii) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of Prayers (i) and (ii)
above."
3. Facts of the case, in a narrow compass, is that the
petitioners, got allotment of a land measuring 0.04 acres vide
Allotment Order No. 233/2013, dated 05.01.2013, and as
Premium they paid Rs.6,00,000/-, and thereafter, they started to
reside therein. The petitioners also approached Revenue
Authority for mutation, and accordingly, Record of Right was
created in their favour vide Khatian No. 7410 of Mouja- Barjala,
Tehsil- Barjala, Revenue Circle- Agartala, Sub-Division- Sadar,
under C.S. Plot No. PB-3150-9638, 9639(Part), corresponding to
R.S. Plot No. 11269/18240. From the year 2025, the petitioner
No. 1 had been suffering from some acute disease for which he
underwent diagnosis and treatment under various hospitals and
doctors. Lastly it was opined by the doctor of Tata Medical
Center, Kolkata, that the petitioner has been suffering from
cancer for which he needs biopsy, but due to serious financial
stringency, the petitioner No. 1 is unable to continue with his
treatment. Finding no other alternative, the petitioners decided
to sale their allotted land to any intending purchaser to meet up
his medical expenses by the said consideration amount. Since
selling of the allotted land requires permission, so, the petitioners
approached respondent No.2 by representation dated 11.12.2025
(Annexure 4 to the writ petition), and 29.12.2025 (Annexure 5 to
the writ petition) thereby seeking permission to sale their allotted
land, but the respondent No.2 did not respond the said letters.
4. The contention of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the petitioner No. 1 is a patient of
Cancer and at this stage is under precarious health condition and
to meet up his medical expense substantial money is required.
Learned counsel has further submitted that to gather that
substantial money, the petitioners have to sell their allotted land,
but permission to sell their allotted land has not been accorded
by the respondent No.2, thereby, the representations submitted
by the petitioners remained un-responded and pending for
consideration. In fine, learned counsel for the petitioners has
urged this court to direct the respondents to address the
representations submitted by the petitioners so as to enable the
petitioners to sell their allotted land.
5. Per contra, Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that if the
petitioners are found eligible otherwise not facing any dis-
qualification, then there should not be any difficulty for the
Officer concerned to consider their representation.
6. This court has perused the record and also has gone
through the correspondences made therein. It is seen from the
record that after getting allotment of the said land, Khatian also
was also published in the name of the petitioners. The petitioner
herein also paid the due premium in regard to one of the
conditions of allotment order dated 05.01.2013. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner No.1 is a patient of acute Cancer
which would be evident from the medical documents placed on
record, and he is under prolong treatment in and outside the
State. Since cancer treatment is very expensive, the petitioners
opted to sell their allotted land to any intending purchaser. As,
there is an embargo on the issue of selling of allotted property,
the petitioners preferred representations to the respondent No.2
seeking permission to sell their allotted land, but admittedly the
representations, so submitted, remained un-responded and
pending for consideration.
7. This court is governed by the principle of justice, equity
and good conscious. Needless to say, the petitioners approached
the respondents by representations dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure 4
to the writ petition), and 29.12.2025 (Annexure 5 to the writ
petition), which have not been disposed of till date, and thus, this
may cause serious prejudice to a cancer patient. Courts have shown
empathy toward patients needing funds for treatment, and if any
representation is pending for permission to sell land due to illness,
courts generally direct prompt disposal, often without commenting
on the merits of the case initially.
8. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case,
this Court directs the respondents to consider the representations
dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), and
29.12.2025 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), of the petitioner in
accordance with law and procedure and dispose of the same within
3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.
This court hopes and trusts that the respondents shall definitely
dispose the representation of the petitioner with a reasoned order.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed to the
extent as indicated above. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2026.02.04 02:30:39
-08'00'
