BABUL CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1,2 & 3 and Mr. B. Saha and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

(2.) The dispute in the writ petition falls within a very short compass. On 22.04.1976, the land measuring 4.07 acres pertaining to Khatian No.812, C.S. Plot Nos.9/2936, 9/2940, 9/2937, 854, 853/2931, 853 and 849 corresponding to R.S. Plot Nos.18,24,26,2665,2727,2728 and 2729 in Mouja- Kamalnagar was allotted in favour of late Satish Chandra Das, the predecessor in interest. Satish Chandra Das continued his possession till his death i.e. on 03.08.2002 and thereafter, the petitioners are in possession over the said land. According to the petitioners on 14.05.2013, the respondent No.4 who is sharing a common boundary along with R.S. Plot No.2729 had dispossessed the petitioners from a piece of land, measuring 0.16 acres (8 gandas) from the R.S. Plot No.2729 by way of stealthy encroachment. The petitioners No.1 to 5 instituted a suit being Title Suit No.07 of 2014 on 16.03.2014 in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Khowai seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession from the respondent No.4. In that suit, the petitioners No.6 and 7 have been impleaded as the proforma respondents. On 30.05.2013, the respondent No.4 made an application to the respondent No.2 that he was in possession over 0.42 acres of land on the said R.S. Plot No.2729 since his birth but that land was not recorded in his name. He prayed for recording his name in the said R.S. Plot. Based on the said application dated 30.05.2013, the respondent No.2 initiated a revenue proceeding being Revenue Case No.79 of 2013 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. A field inquiry was carried out by the respondent No.3. In the field inquiry report dated 10.02.2014 as submitted by the Deputy Collector, Teliamura and the report dated 20.02.2014, Annexures-5 & 6 respectively to the writ petition where it has been shown that the respondent No.4 is having his possession over that disputed piece of land. The petitioners raised serious objection against the said report and stated that the respondent No.4 forcibly dispossessed the petitioners from 0.16 acres of land on 14.05.2013. It is apparent that the said application for correction of the ROR was filed by the respondent No.4 much before the institution of the suit.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that despite knowledge of pendency of a civil suit, the respondent No.2 passed the final order on 11.06.2014 in Revenue Case No.79 of 2013 holding that the piece of land measuring 0.16 acres out of R.S. Plot No.2729 was not under possession of Satish Ch. Das but that was in the possession of the respondent No.4 and the said piece of land was wrongly allotted in favour of Satish Ch. Das.