Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Kali Mohan Sahaji and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 01.08.2007
The judgment establishes the invalidity of non-tribal possession of tribal land based on unregistered deeds and affirms the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority to order restoration of land to tribal owners, even for transfers made prior to 1.1.1969.
Headnote:
Tribal Land Transfer - Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 187, Section 187D, Section 187B - The judgment discusses the validity of transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without the previous permission of the Collector in writing and the requirement of a registered instrument for such transfer. It also addresses the power of restoration of land to tribal owners and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority to order restoration of land, even for transfers made prior to 1.1.1969. The court emphasizes the protection of tribal land and the limitations on non-tribal acquisition of title or legal right of possession over tribal land.
Fact of the Case:
The cases involve non-tribal petitioners claiming possession of land based on unregistered deeds executed by tribal landowners. The State respondents initiated restoration proceedings under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, seeking to restore possession of the land to the tribal claimants. The petitioners challenged the restoration orders, arguing that the Act's provisions did not apply to their possession of tribal land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without the required permission and a registered instrument is invalid. It also affirmed the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority to order restoration of land to tribal owners, even for transfers made prior to 1.1.1969. The court dismissed three writ petitions and disposed of one in terms of the order passed.
Issues: The key issues involved the validity of non-tribal possession of tribal land based on unregistered deeds, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority to order restoration of land, and the identification of the transferor's successor-in-interest for restoration purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the protection of tribal land and the limitations on non-tribal acquisition of title or legal right of possession over tribal land. It also clarified the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority to order restoration of land to tribal owners, even for transfers made prior to 1.1.1969.
Final Decision: Three writ petitions were dismissed, and one was disposed of in terms of the order passed.
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. With the consent of the learned Counsels representing the parties in these four proceedings, the matters are being taken up for analogous hearing since the substantial issue involved in each of the cases is similar. The necessary facts in each of the cases are being set out later in the judgment being pronounced.
2. Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the four writ petitions. Also heard Mr. R.B. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents in Civil Rule Nos. 574 of 1997,577 of 1997 and 582 of 1997. Mr. J. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appears for the State respondents in W.P.(C) No. 352 of 2006.
Mr. A. K. Deb, learned Counsel appears for private respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 574 of 1997. Similarly, Mr. Section Lodh, learned Counsel appears for the private respondent No. 4 in W.P.(C) No. 352 of 2006.
3. For the sake of convenience, the essential facts in the writ petitions are taken note of separately:
CIVIL RULE No. 574 OF 1997
(Kali Mohan Sahaji and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Ors.)
(i) The writ petitioner Lalit Mohan Sahaji (since dead and now represented by the two legal heirs) is challenging an order dated 13.2.1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kanchanpur Sub-Division, North Tripura. By the said order, the S.D.O. had directed the writ petitioner, who is a non-tribal, to be dispossessed from the land under his possession and directed restoration of possession of the land to the respondent No. 4, Lalit Mohan Chakma, who is the legal heir of Late Nama Charan Chakma;
(ii) The petitioners claim possession of the said land on the strength of an unregistered deed dated 4.6.1967, which was executed by the vendor Nama Charan Chakma whereby the transferor agreed to sell the subject land to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and it was recorded that delivery of possession of the land on the strength of the said unregistered sale agreement deed has been made in favour of the petitioner;
(iii) It is claimed that the petitioner has been in possession of the land on the strength of the said unregistered deed dated 4.6.1967. While in possession of the land as aforesaid, the respondent No. 4 Lalit Mohan Chakma initiated a proceeding in the year 1981 for restoration of the land and threatened the dispossession of the petitioner. To protect his right over the land, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 9 of 1974 against the transferor Nama Charan Chakma for permanent injunction against his dispossession;
(iv) In course of the proceeding in Title Suit No. 9 of 1974, a compromise was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant and accordingly, the learned Munsiffon the basis of the consent given by the parties, decreed the suit on 10.1.1975 in favour of the petitioner against the defendant (transferor);
(v) Thereafter, in 1981 a proceeding was initiated under Section 187(3) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'TLR & LR Act') in the Revenue Court at Dharmanagar against the petitioner for restoration of land. The said proceeding was initiated by the respondent No. 4 Lalit Mohan Chakma, who is the son of the transferor Nama Charan Chakma;
(vi) On receipt of the notice of the said restoration proceeding, the petitioner appeared and produced the unregistered sale agreement deed dated 4.6.1967 as well as the certified copy of the mutual decree obtained by him in Title Suit No. 9 of 1974 to claim his right to possess the land and to deny the claim for restoration made by respondent No. 4;
(vii) The Sub-Divisional Officer, North Tripura by his order dated 4.3.1982 directed restoration of the land in favour of the applicant-respondent No. 4 Lalit Mohan Chakma;
(viii) The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision petition under Section 95of the TLR & LR Act, which was registered as Revision Case No. 12 of 1983. The Revisional Authority by his order dated 23.8.1990 found that there was
