SAMIR RANJAN BARMAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners' case briefly is as follows :- Petitioner No. 1 is Samir Ranjan Barman (hereinafter referred to as Samir Barman) and Petitioner No. 2 is Smt. Maya Barman, wife of Samir Barman. One Ashit Chandra Bhattacharjee (hereinafter referred to as Ashit Bhattacharjee) was the duly recorded owner of about 0. 306 acres of land with structures thereon at No. 38, Akhaura Road, Agartala town. The name of said Ashit Bhattacharjee was recorded as a raiyat in the Record of Rights being Town Sheet No. 6, C. S. Khatian No. 1861, Dag No. 4867. Out of the said land covered by Dag No. 4867 of Khatian No. 1861, Ashit Bhattacharjee by a registered deed of sale dated 8th November, 1968 transferred a parcel of land measuring about 9 Gondas 2 Karas 7 Dhurs with certain structures thereon for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/- in favour of Samir Barman (Petitioner No. 1) and the purchaser was put in possession thereof. The said Ashit Bhattacharjee by several other registered deeds of sale sold the balance of his land at No. 38, Akhaura Road, Agartala to Anil Baran Paul, Bimal Kanti Paul, Smt. Himanshu Bala Paul and Rabin Sengupta.

(2.) AFTER the said purchase of the land in question by Samir Barman, his name was mutated and entered in the Records of Rights as finally published and also in the records of the municipal authorities of Agartala. Samir Barman had been all along paying land revenue and municipal taxes in respect of the said land and structures. Ashit Bhattacharjee having thus transferred his properties left Agartala and settled in West Bengal and he is now residing at Birati, District 24 Parganas, State of West Bengal. According to the petitioners' information on enquiry Ashit Bhattacharjee was a freedom fighter and received pension from the State of Tripura and is now receiving pension from the State of West Bengal and four sons of Ashit Bhattacharjee are still living and residing with their father. After having purchased the said land and structures Samir Barman applied to the Government of Tripura (Respondent No. 6) for grant of a loan under Middle Income Group Housing Scheme. After enquiry and being satisfied with the title of Samir Barman with respect to the said land and structures, the State Government of Tripura granted a loan of Rs. 25,000/- to Samir Barman under the said Scheme and Samir Barman, secure the said loan, mortgaged a part of the said land in favour of the State Government and the said mortgage is still subsisting. Thereafter Samir Barman, prior to August 3, 1974 constructed some buildings and structures on the land. He constructed one two-storeyed R. C. C. building and the ground floor of that building has been rented out. The petitioners also constructed three huts where he resided with his wife (Petitioner No. 2) and their children. At all material times since the purchase of the said land and structures Samir Barman had been in possession, use and enjoyment of the said land and structures thereon without interruption from any quarter including Respondent No. 6 Samir Barman rented out a portion of the ground floor to Jam Air Company Ltd. at a rental of Rs. 380/- per month and another part to Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee, Proprietor of Tripura Traders at a rental of Rs. 200/- per month and this fact was known to the Respondents at all material times.

(3.) ON June 28, 1975 petitioner Samir Barman was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Samir Barman while in detention applied several times to Respondent No. 2 Additional District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, for calling for certain documents and issuing summonses to certain witnesses as mentioned in the petition in connection with Misc. Case No. 51/west/74. But respondent No. 2 by different orders refused to issue summons for production of the said documents and attendance of the said witnesses. It has also been alleged in the petition that the lawyer of the petitioner was not allowed to interview Samir Barman in Jail for receiving instructions for the purpose of the case and he could not defend his case properly inasmuch as he alone was aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and his prayer for adjournment of the case till his release from detention was also rejected.