MOHANLAL DEB ROY Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KAMALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition in compendium are these. Respondent No. 2 belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tripura is the owner of land measuring 2.48 acres of Mouza Kanchanpur, Kamalpur, North Tripura, Jote No. 21, Khatian No. 29, C.S. Plot No. 965/1184 measuring 1.60 acres and Jote No. 6, Khatian No. 10. C.S. Plot No. 46 measuring; 0.88 acre. The 2nd respondent being a member of Scheduled Tribe community is forbidden to transfer his land to a member not belonging to scheduled Tribe, except with previous permission by the Collector and after fulfilling all the requisite prescribed procedures as envisaged under the Act, A special provision has been made under Tripura State Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act in this regard which 1 shall be dealing in detail at appropriate time. On 10.4.74 an agreement for sale was executed between the petitioner (who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe) and the respondent No. 2 (a member of Scheduled Tribe). In the said agreement for sale the total price of land was settled at Rs. 7,200/- and the respondent No. 2 also received Rs. 6,200/- being part of the consideration money. On receipt of the part-payment, respondent No. 2 delivered possession of the land to the petitioner and the petitioner took possession of the land. It was also agreed that a registered sale deed would be executed after obtaining permission from the District Magistrate & Collector for sale of the tribal land. Thereafter, an application dated 8.8.75 (Annexure-1) was filed by the 2nd respondent seeking permission from the District Magistrate & Collector for sale of his land. In the application, the 2nd respondent stated that his family member consist of 12 persons and that he had taken a loan from the Government for excavating a tank but the said loan cannot be repaid. It was further stated that the respondent No. 2 has a vast land measuring more than 1(one) drone but there was no willing purchaser amongst the tribal members and he could not sell his land to the non-tribal without permission. In the said application, the 2nd respondent sought permission from the Collector to sell his land measuring about 2.48 acres. Ultimately, the permission was not granted by the District Collector and the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the learned S.D.O., Kamalpur being registered as Case No. REV/25/92 for restoration of alienated tribal land under Section 187 (3) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act. 1960. The learned S.D.O. Kamalpur by its order dated 23rd Nov. 92 had held that the transaction of sale has been taken place between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in violation of the provision of Section 187 of the Act. It was further ordered that the land in plot No. 376, Khatian No. 91 of Kanchanpur Mouza measuring an area of 1.60 Acres and Plot No. 377, Khatian No. 166 of Mouza Kanchanpur measuring an area of 0.38 acre be restored to the 1 st party (2nd respondent herein). Being aggrieved this writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State at length.

(3.) The main thrust of the argument of Mr. S. Deb is that the agreement executed between the 2nd respondent is only an agreement for sale and no transfer of the land has taken place and therefore, the learned SDO has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 187 (3) of the Act. It is further contended by Mr. S. Deb that the transfer of land means the transfer of right in land and since no right of the land has been transferred to the petitioner, it does not amount to transfer as envisages under Section 187 of the Act. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. U.B. Saha that even on their own admission, the petitioner has taken over the possession of the land in question as it is stated in paragraph 2 of the petition that the possession of land has been delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner has taken possession of the land and therefore, such transaction amounts to transfer of land and such transfer is in violation of the provision prescribed under Section 187 of the Act inasmuch as no previous permission was taken from the Collector and the other procedures prescribed under the Act has not been followed.