RANGAMAYEE CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. C. Nath, learned Govt. Advocate representing the official Respondents. Mr. K. K. Paul, learned Counsel appears for Respondent No. 4. Submissions are also heard from Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel with regard to the provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'the TLR & LR Act).

(2.) The Petitioners who are non-Tribal and are in occupation of land purchased from the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No. 4, Late Rangamani Reang challenge the order dated 14.6.1999 passed by the Collector of the North Tripura District (Annexure-6) in a review proceeding initiated under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act. By rejecting the review, the Collector has upheld the earlier order passed on 25.9.1997 by the SDO, North Tripura in the Restoration Case No. 87/96 whereby the land under Petitioner's possession was restored to the First Party (Tribal). The restoration of 6.11 Acres of land was ordered inter alia, on the ground that no dead of transfer of the land from the tribal land owner could be produced by the occupier and their occupation was found to be forcible. Restoration of 0.9 Acres of land was declined as the said lands were found to be homestead land where the writ Petitioner (s) had their residence.

(3.) 1. On 5.9.1957, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by Late Rangamani Reang from whom the Petitioner (s) claimed to have purchased the land in the year 1955. Three others joined Rangamani as first party in the 145 proceeding claiming that each of the 3 had purchased 4 Kani land each from Rangamani. The first party's case was that out of total 1 Drone land under Jote No. 74, Rangamani Reang sold 4 Kani land to 3 members of the first party by Regd. Kabala dated 8.3.1956 and he retained for himself, the remaining 4 Kani land. It was also alleged that the members of the second party (writ Petitioners and their predecessors) were trying to disturb the lawful possession of the first party (tribal).