RAKHAL MITRA Vs. BABUL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.R.Chowdhury, learned counsel accompanied by Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, I like to proceed with the facts relevant to decide the present second appeal. In a short compass, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land described in Schedule-B, which is the part and parcel of the land Schedule-A of the plaint, was allotted in favour of the respondents [here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs] in the year 1976. Since then, the plaintiffs had been possessing the land peacefully by construction of huts and also by way of cultivation of different kind of crops. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the year 2013, they noticed that the appellant-defendant [here-in-after referred to as the defendant] had extended his possession of his own land by way of encroaching the land of the plaintiffs measuring 77 feets to the east side and 11 feets in the north side. The plaintiffs made a request to vacate the encroached portion i.e. B-Schedule land on 14.06.2013, but, the defendant denied to such request and did not vacate the B-Schedule land. Hence, the cause of action arose to institute the present suit.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the pleaded case of the defendant that they had been in possession over the suit land before the date of allotment of the said land in favour of the defendant by the Revenue Authority. On the strength of such possession, the defendant has claimed right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and accordingly the defendant approached the Revenue Authority by filing an application under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, the TLR and LR Act) for correction of record of rights [Khatian]. The District Magistrate and Collector, Khowai District after receipt of the application, had passed an order for field verification through Tehsildar. Enquiry was made and the enquiry report revealed that the defendant had been in peaceful possession since last 40 years and vide order dated 11.06.2014, the District Collector had ordered that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura, would initiate fresh proceeding under the appropriate provision of law for cancellation of allotment of the land in question after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both or all parties, having interest in such disputed land or whose interest could be affected and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura would send the detailed case record along with related and relevant documents, evidences, records and depositions etc. to his office for further and final disposal of the proceeding, within 60 days from the date of the said order. The order dated 11.06.2014 passed by the District Collector, Khowai District was challenged by the plaintiffs before the High Court by way of filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While disposing the writ petition bearing No.WP(C)427/2014, this Court had passed the following observation and order at Paragraph 9 which reads thus:-