2004(2) Supreme 306
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Sudhangshu Mohan Deb (Dead) by Lrs. -Appellants
versus
Niroda Sundari Debidhup & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5112-5113 of 1997
Decided on 20-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K. Ramamoorthy, Sr. Advocate, Tufail A. Khan, Ms. Shoba Nagarajan, J. Sriram, G.D. Gupta and Mukul Gupta, Advocates.
Held : Once a khatiyan is finalised and its publication takes place, it is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. The final khatiyan stands published in favour of the appellant which gives the appellant right to remain in possession of the suit land. This is a fresh right created in favour of the appellant by the State Government in whom the entire land had vested by virtue of Sections 134 and 135 of the Act. (Para 7)
In normal course it may be correct to say that possession obtained in execution of a decree has to be restored to the party dispossessed, on the decree being set aside. But the present case is different. Here a statute has intervened. The 1960 Act contains a vesting provision as a result whereof the land in suit automatcially vested in the State Government. The statute has taken away the right of possession of the lands of the party who was earlier in possession of the lands. The statutory provision has such a salutory effect that even if somebody was in actual possession of the land on the date of promulgation of the statute, he/she would lose the right to possession and would have to hand over the possession to the State Government. Therefore, the respondents do not have any right to ask for possession of the lands. (Para 9)
As a result of the 1960 Act, the land in question had vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances. The State Government was free to deal with the land in any manner it chose to do. On application of the appellant the State Government granted khatiyan in favour of the appellant with respect to the suit lands. The khatiyan thus confers legal and valid right on the appellant to remain in possession of the suit lands. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court confirming that of the lower appellate court are hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant stands decreed. The suit for restitution of possession of lands filed by predecessor of respondent stands dismissed. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.-This litigation has a chequered history. Land comprised in Jote No. 145 standing in the name of one Sonatan Dhopi was acquired by the then Maharaja of Tripura in the year 1347 T.E. corresponding to 1937 A.D. for a public purpose viz. construction of motor stand and pathway etc. It was found that the acquired land was in excess of the requirement, therefore, the excess land was decided to be settled in favour of tenants. One Dhirendrajit Singh Roy (predecessor of the appellant) and Jagabandhu Dhopi, who is said to be nephew of original owner Sonatan Dhopi, (predecessor of the respondents) were the applicants for settlement of the excess land. Application of Jagabandhu Dhopi was rejected while that of Dhirandrajit Singh Roy was accepted and a registered patta granting Takshishi Taluki rights in his favour was executed. In the year 1949 Jagabandhu Dhopi, however, encroached upon the land, subject matter of the patta which led Dhirandrajit Singh Roy to file a suit for eviction being Miscellaneous Case No. 141 of 1956 in the Court of District Magistrate-cum-Collector. During the pendency of the suit Dhirendrajit Singh Roy sold the suit land to Sudhanghshu Mohan Deb (since deceased and represented by LRs), the appellant herein, on 10th December, 1957. The name of the appellant was duly substituted in place of Dhirendrajit Singh Roy in the eviction suit. Vide order dated 27th June, 1958 the District Magistrate directed the SDO to arrange delivery of possession of portion of the suit land which was vacant to the plaintiff and for the rest the appellant was directed to move civil court for recovery of possession. Dhopi preferred an appeal against the said order before the Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner directed appellant to file a civil suit for the relief of possession of the suit land. On 30th June, 1959 the appellant filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1962 for declaration of Takshishi Taluki right and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 25th March, 1963. The appeal filed by Dhopi against the decree was dismissed on 28th April, 1965. Dhopi filed second appeal before the Judicial Commissioner. However on 28th May, 1965, the appellant took possession of the suit land in execution of the decree that was passed in his favour.
2. On 25th October, 1961 the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was notified. The said Act came into force with effect from 14th November, 1961. The Judicial Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by Dhopi on 12th April, 1971 holding that in view of the Act, the land in question vested in the Government and the appellant had lost his right to seek its possession. The Act contained provision in Sections 134 and 135 which had the effect of vesting all estates situated in a notified area in the Government free from all encumbrances. All right, title and interest of every intermediary in such estates got extinguished as a result of the statutory provision. In the appeal the present appellant had moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to bring on record by way of additional evidence the fact that after the vesting of the land in the Government, provisional khatiyan had been granted by the Government in his favour with respect to the suit land. The said application was, however, rejected on the ground that khatiyan was still provisional and was yet to be finalised. Section 136 of the Act entitles an intermediary to retain possession of the vested land subject to payment of land revenue directly to the Government. The Section is reproduced as under:
"Section 136: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 134 and 135, an intermediary shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be entitled to retain with effect from the vesting date,-
(a) homesteads, buildings and structures together with the appurtenant thereto in the possession of the inter-mediary other than buildings vested in the Gover
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.