LAWS(TRIP)-2020-1-39

MARAN DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On January 16, 2020
Maran Das Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are legal heirs of one Ananta Kumar Das. According to them, the land bearing RS Plot No.749, Khatian No.248 admeasuring .60 acres of Tehsil - Bhuratali, South Tripura was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners by the Government many years back. Ananta Kumar Das was dispossessed from the land by the Forest Department forcibly in the year 2007 upon which he had filed Title Suit 22 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), South Tripura. The suit was decreed. It was declared to the plaintiffs have their right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of possession and the defendants were permanently restrained from disturbing such possession. First appeal against the said judgment and decree came to be dismissed. The State Government thereupon preferred second appeal before this Court. Second appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 8 th July, 2016 in which following observations were made :

(2.) The Deputy Collector, Sabroom, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 14th March, 2019 cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners which reads as under :

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record I find the manner in which the said order is passed, cannot be supported in law. This Court while disposing of the second appeal filed by the State Government did make certain observations to the effect that the decision of the Civil Court cannot come in the way of the Government in considering cancellation of the allotment. However, this order neither directed cancellation of allotment nor provided that the cancellation can be made without following due process of law. The least that the respondents who were required to do was to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any adverse order. The impugned order proceeds on an enquiry report and also holds that the allottee had violated the provisions of allotment rules.