RANGAMAYEE CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. D C Roy for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D C Nath for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No.4.

(2.) The fact, in short, necessary for disposal of this appeal,may be stated thus : Bhandari Choudhury, since deceased, predecessor of appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), Haridhan Choudhury, since deceased, prede-cessor of appellant Nos.2(a) to 2(e) and respdt. Nos.3 and 4 together filed WP(C) No.417/1999 before this Court inter alia stating that their predecessors had been in possession of the land recorded in Khatian No.64 old Plot Nos.400, 401, 402, 403 measuring an area of 7.22 acres in Mouza - Dakshin Machmara, Kanchanpur, District � 1/2 North Tripura, which was subsequently recorded in Khatian No.92, CS Plot Nos.1104, 1102, 1103, 1456, 1457, 1153, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1118, 1121, 1106, 1105, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1120, 1454 and 1455 which appertain to old Jote No.74. The petitioners and their predecessors had been in possession of the land exercising all acts of possession without any disturbance from any quarter. A proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC was drawn at the instance of respdt No.4 and others against predecessors of the writ petitioners and learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar by judgment dated 06.06.1961, decided the possession in favour of the predecessors of the writ petitioners. A copy of that judgment has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1. After that judgment, passed by learned Munsiff in Misc Case No.33/1960, the respdt No.4 and others brought a Title Suit No.75/1962 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, against the predece-ssors of the petitioners and that suit was withdrawn on 20.09.1963. A copy of order sheet of that Title Suit has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, in the year 1996, respdt No.4 filed applications before Sub-Divisional Officer, (for short S.D.O.) Kanchanpur under Section 187 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short TLR & LR Act) seeking restoration of the land in favour of tribals since the possession was taken over by non-tribals in violation of the provisions of TLR & LR Act. Those petitions, filed under Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act, were registered as Restoration Case Nos.87/1996 and 88/1996. The Sub- Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 25.9.1997, directed restoration of possession of the land in favour of the tribals. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Against that order, the writ petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act which was registered as Revenue Revision Case No.5/Rev/PS/1998 and by order, dated 27.3.1998, Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the Revenue Department remanded the case, for fresh hearing and disposal to the Collector, North Tripura District under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act. A copy of that order, passed by Principal Secretary, has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The District Collector, by order dated 14.06.1999, in Case No.Rev/Review/92/98 registered under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 disposed the review case and thereby upheld the order, dated 25.09.1997, passed by S.D.O, Kanchanpur. The writ petitioners challenged the order, passed by District Collector, dated 14.06.1999, in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court by a reasoned Judgment/order, dated 16.6.2010, dismissed the writ petition and hence the appellants filed the present writ appeal challenging the order passed by Single Bench of this Court.

(3.) The only point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Roy, is that the possession of the land was taken over by the predecessors of the appellants long before TLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force. So, the provisions of Section 187 of the Act with its subsequent amendments have no manner of application in the case of the appellants. The possession of the land in favour of the predecessors of the appellants was declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction, on 06.06.1961 and so the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by District Collector, has no bearing on the possession of appellants in the land in question. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order, passed by learned single Judge in the writ petition and also to set aside the order passed by District Collector.