SAMAR KRISHNA SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>I.A.ANSARI, J.</DJG> Heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Government Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.C. Nath, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The case of the writ petition may in brief state thus : The petitioner's father, Sachindra Chandra Saha (since deceased), owned some landed properties at Ishanchandranagar, Mouza Madhupur, West Tripura District. The petitioner's father died, on 15.1.2003, bequeathing his landed properties, by way of registered will, in favour of the petitioner, who is the youngest son of the said deceased. The petitioner, then, applied, on 23.03.2003, to the Tehshilder, Suryamani Nagar, Tehshil Kachari, under Section 46 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, the T.L.R.& LR. Act) for mutation of the said land in his name as sole successor to the said property left by his father. Based on the petitioner's application, MR Case No. 31 of 2003, was registered and by a notice dated 26.5.2004, issued in the said proceeding, the petitioner was asked to present the said registered will, in original, along with other relevant documents of the land, in question, before Tehshilder concerned on 7.6.2004. The petitioner accordingly produced all the documents, so demanded; but the Tehshilder (Revenue Officer) denied to grant mutation on the ground that without the registered will having been probated, no such mututation can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, then, submitted an application through Tehshilder to the Deputy Collector, Dukli, Revenue Circle, seeking mutation of the land aforementioned in favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner's application and repeated requests made by him to the Deputy Collector, Dukli, Revenue Circle, yielded no favourable result, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking, with 'the help of this present writ application, issuance of appropriate writ or writs commanding the respondents to grant [mututation in respect of the land aforementioned as had been sought for by the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have contested the proceeding by filing their affidavit, the case of the respondents, in brief, that it is the Deputy Collector, Dukli, Revenue Circle, who is the empowered officer under the [provision of the T.L.R. & L.R. Act to dispose of the mutation application and, accordingly, the Deputy Collector aforementioned took up the mutation application and directed the petitioner to produce all the survivors, i.e. legal heirs and successor of the deceased Sachindra Chandra Saha, before the Deputy Collector in order to enable him to grant mutuation. However, as the petitioner failed to produce the persons, who had been left behind as legal heirs and successors by the said deceased, mututation could not be granted in favour of the petitioner.