MADHURI KALAI Vs. PARIMAL CHANDRA SAHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 delivered in case No. 12/Appeal/Rev/Secy/2013 U/S 93(2) of TLR & LR Act, 1960 by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department has been challenged. Indisputably the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribes. At the petitioner's instance the proceeding under Sec. 187B((1)(b) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the TLR & LR Act in short, was drawn up for restoration of the land appertaining to RS Plot No. 1487, Khatian No. 31/12 of Mouja - Hawaibari, now Khowai District. The said original petition dated 18.10.2010 was dismissed by the designated officer, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura by the order dated 21.07.2012 delivered in Revenue Case No. 01 of 2012. In that petition, Annexure -1 to this petition, the petitioner has asserted inter alia that the proceeding land originally belonged to one Waki Rai Kalai who died intestate leaving her two daughters, namely Smt. Mangaleswari Kalai and Smt. Rabi Kanya Kalai and two sons namely, Sri Subodh Singh Kalai, now deceased and Sri Manindra Kalai. By inheritance, the land devolved to those legal heirs. The said two daughters sold out the entire proceeding land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2009. According to the petitioner, she got the delivery of possession of the proceeding land from the vendors immediately after making of the sale deed. The respondents herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 08 of 2009 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Khowai, West Tripura against the petitioner and other defendants for declaring their right, title and interest over the proceeding land and for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner with consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the petitioner. The said suit was dismissed on 11.10.2010. The petitioner asserted that after dismissal of the suit the respondents No. 1 and 2, collaborated by the remaining respondents, trespassed into the proceeding land on 13.10.2010 dispossessing the petitioner. It has been also alleged that the respondents started on that very day itself constructing a building on the proceeding land. Hence, the petitioner prayed for restoration of the possession of the land under Sec. 187B(1) of the TLR & LR Act. As stated, the said petition was dismissed by the designated officer by his order dated 21.07.2012. In the judgment, the designated officer after due consideration of the documents so placed and on inquiry, has observed inter alia:

(2.) As per the field inquiry report on the matter the Tdr., Howaibari TK had clearly mentioned that the suit land is under the continuous and undisturbed possession of the respondents since 1962 to till date. The petitioner Smt. Madhuri Kalai has no possession over the suit land in the past or now."

(3.) Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel alive of the narrow ambit of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has emphatically submitted that the expression 'on or after the 1st January, 1969' appearing in Sec. 187B(1) of the TLR & LR Act has been wrongly interpreted in the impugned judgment and order. Even if the revenue authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of non -tribal occupier of the land owned by a member of the Scheduled Tribe, but on and after 01.01.1969 the legislature has entrusted the revenue authority with jurisdiction to evict such non -tribal occupier from the land owned by a tribal and to restore possession thereof to the tribal owner. As such, it is immaterial whether the dispossession or delivery of possession had taken place before 01.01.1969. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel in Hemalata Mallik and others v/s. the State and others, this aspect has not been taken care of.