The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Revenue Court should not entertain any proceeding regarding a subject matter already decided by a competent Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Das, J.:-

Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioners. Learned counsel, Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta) appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that she had been engaged by the respondents to conduct the case but the case file is not with her and that she has no contact with the respondents so long and therefore, not in a position to argue the case since she has no instruction from the respondents.

2. The writ petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In course of his submission learned counsel, Mr. Biswas prayed for treating it as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such prayer of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has been allowed.

3. The petitioners, inter alia, contended that they are legal heirs and successors of Barindra Nath who was the owner in possession of the land recorded in Khatian No. 1677, Plot No. 1742 and 1744 of Mouja Churaibari. The land was allotted in the name of Barindra Nath measuring 1.75 acres and during his life time Barinidra Nath was in occupation of the land and thereafter the petitioners being the legal heirs stepped to the shoes of Barindra Nath. The respondents, while started disturbing the possession of the petitioners in different manner, in the year 2006, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 01 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar praying for perpetual injunction against the respondents from entering into and/or disturbing right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners in the suit land and in that suit respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeared and submitted written statement and contested the suit. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No. 1 and though respondent No. 4 was not a party in that suit but pleadings was raised in the name of respondent No. 4 also in the title suit. Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and restrained the respondents from entering into and/or disturbing the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land recorded in Khatian No. 1677 and other lands described in the suit. The respondents thereafter in collusion, filed a petition under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (for short, TLR and LR Act) in the name of the respondent No. 4, against the petitioners, praying for correction of the record of rights alleging that a portion of the suit land has been occupied by respondent No. 4. That petition under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act was registered as Revision Case No. 60/2006 in the Court of District Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar and the petitioners on their appearance before the District Collector submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court and contended that the Civil Court already decided the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land and so the Revenue Court should not take up the issue afresh in view of the decree of the Civil Court already in force in respect of that land. But the District Collector defying the submission of the petitioners, passed order dated 24.03.2007, directing SDM, Dharmanagar to cause an inquiry in respect of physical status of the land and to arrange for recording unutilized and unoccupied land in the khas khatian and re-allot the same to the person who has been actually occupying it if he/she is a landless person.

Having felt aggrieved with the order, the petitioners preferred this Revisional application under 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents filed a written objection, inter alia, stating that in the title suit instituted by the petitioners, respondent No. 4 was not a party and so the decree is not binding on respondent No. 4. It is the contention of the respondents that a part of the suit land i.e. allotted land of Barindra Nath was never occupied by Barindra Nath or his successors and that the l