HRISHIRAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 7. 3. 2009 passed by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 4 herein, in appeal case No. 13/appl/secy/rev/07 whereby and whereunder the said appellate authority disallowed the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal petition and dismissed the appeal petition on the ground that as per the provisions of Sections 93 (1) (c) and 94 (1) (a) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960, no appeal shall lie after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the order appealed against.

(2.) HEARD Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. C. Pal, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents 1, 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondent - Union of India.

(3.) FOR proper decision of the case, the pleaded case of the petitioners, in short, is required to be looked into. The petitioner No. 1 and the mother of the petitioner No. 2 were given jote settlement by the then Maharaja of Tripura for a land measuring 4 drones 6 kanis under Kayemi Taluk No. 204 at Mouza Sal Bagan No. 30. After the jote settlement they were given possession, but at one point of time, they could not keep constant vigilance over the said land as the petitioner No. 1 being a businessman had to remain outside the State of Tripura very frequently and the mother of the petitioner No. 1 being an orthodox Hindu widow did not like to involve herself to the said matter after a particular age. In 1990, the mother of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 being jotedars found that their land has been recorded in khas khatian behind their back though they paid revenue for the said land to the Maharaja before enactment of TLR and LR Act, 1960. They therefore filed a petition under Section 11 (3) of the said Act before the Collector, West Tripura for re-recording their names in the khatian by deleting the name of the State Government and the said case was numbered as Rev. Case No. 35 of 1990. The Collector, the Respondent No. 3 herein, after hearing the parties dismissed the aforesaid revenue case on the ground of non-production of some documents. It is contended that the petitioner No. 1 appointed one attorney for conducting their case, but the said attorney did not inform the petitioners in time that the said petition was dismissed on 16. 5. 1998. In the result, the petitioners could not file the statutory appeal under Section 93 of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 in time. On 25. 7. 2000, the petitioner No. 1, appellant No. 1 herein, came to Agartala and wanted to know the latest position of the revenue case from his attorney, but being unable to collect the latest information from him, he engaged an Advocate for taking necessary information regarding the said revenue case. Ultimately, the said Advocate informed him regarding the order of dismissal dated 16. 5. 1998. Certified copy of the said order dated 16. 5. 1998 was obtained and on receipt of the same, the petitioner appellant No. 1 contacted with the petitioner appellant No. 2. Thereafter, discussion was held between them and they had decided to prefer appeal against the order of dismissal dated 16. 5. 1998. They also appointed an Advocate to prepare the appeal for filing it before the Appellate Authority. Ultimately, the appeal was filed on 28. 8. 2000 along with an application for condoning the delay as by this time, a delay of 2 years 3 months and 12 days had occurred. Hence, delay condonation petition was also filed along with the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Rule 125 of the TLR and LR Rules, 1960 for condoning the delay.