The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 45 and Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, emphasizing the authority of the Collector to rectify/modify any record of rights at any point of time.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Das, J.:-

RSA 10 of 2005 and RSA 11 of 2005 are taken up together for disposal since both the appeals filed by the same set of appellants against the same set of respondents challenging a common appellate judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004, passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura, in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2003 and Title Appeal No. 03 of 2003. This common judgment shall, therefore, govern both the appeals. Both the 2nd appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1) Whether the District Collector has jurisdiction to pass order for correction of record of rights under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960?

2) Whether a decree of recovery of khas possession can be granted in the form of mandatory injunction?

2. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. D. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Mr. H. Laskar for the appellants in both the cases and learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondents in both the cases.

3. The appellant No. 2 and her husband Jagannath Roy, since deceased, the predecessor of all the appellants as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as appellants) filed Title Suit No. 12 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants i.e. the respondents herein (hereinafter mentioned as respondents) from entering into or disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellants in the suit land.

It is inter alia contended that the suit land measuring 0.207 acres described in Schedule B of the plaint were purchased by the plaintiffs Jangannath Roy, since deceased, and Mira Roy in the year 1999 through registered deed of purchase from the original owners by means of Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 and got physical possession from their vendors and were possessing the same exercising all acts of possession. After purchase, in course of mutation of their purchased land, they found that land measuring 0.054 acres was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendants in Khatian No. 3049, Old C.S. Plot No. 4856/5151 and present C.S. Plot No. 5312/11913. They immediately preferred an application under Section95 of the TLR and LR Act before the Collector for correction of record of rights which was registered as Revenue Case No. 74 of 2000 under Section 95 of TLR and LR Act, 1960 and by order dated 09.05.2000 the Collector allowed the petition and directed the correction of record of rights as prayed by the plaintiff-appellants and accordingly, the record of rights was corrected. The defendants having no right, title, interest or possession on 16.05.2000 and on 13.6.2000 made attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs/appellants from the suit land and hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief as stated hereinabove. During pendency of the suit, the defendants (respondents) on 11.5.2001 at about 9-00 a.m. extended one "ekchala" (shed) from their homestead placing poles over a portion of the suit land and the plaintiffs, therefore, amended the plaint and prayed for a mandatory direction to the defendants to remove the poles and ’Ekchala’ from the suit land.

4. Respondent No. 1, Babul Roy did not contest the suit and also did not prefer appeal. Respondent No. 2, Jhunu Roy contested the suit by filing written statement and also set up a counter claim inter alia stating that the defendants (respondents) purchased land measuring 0.150 acres in the year 1986 from the original owners by registered deed (Exhibit C and Exhibit D) and thereafter purchased land was recorded in the name of the defendants in Khatian No. 3049. The plaintiffs (appellants) created sham title deeds with a view to grab the land of the defendants and the defendants are/were in possession of the land described in second schedule of the counter claim measuring 0.50 acres. The defend