The burden of proving lawful authority for occupation lies on the occupier, and the principles of natural justice require giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the owner and the occupier before restoration of possession.

The legality of the order dated 15-7-2009 passed by the Second Appellate Authority/Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura (“SAA” for short) under Section 93, Rule 2(d) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 upholding the order dated 19-9-2007 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh in Case No. 16/06 to 123/06 restoring the possession of the land measuring 3.110 acres to the respondent No. 4 to 168 (“private respondents” for short) is called into question in this writ petition.

2. Though the pleadings of the parties have become more and more voluminous over the years, the facts materials for disposal continue to lie on a narrow compass. The private respondents filed an applications before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Bishalgarh Sub-Division (respondent No. 3) for restoration of a block of land measuring 4.49 acres recorded in Khatian No. 2019 under Badharghat Sheet No. 5 allegedly owned by their predecessor, namely, the late Thakur Lalit Mohan Debbarma claiming that the land was illegally occupied by the petitioners in violation of the provision of Section 187, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (“the Act” for short). According to the petitioners, a market of 50 years old is standing on the said land upon which all of them or their predecessors are running shops and carrying on their businesses for maintaining their livelihood. On the basis of the application, the respondent No. 3 drew up a proceeding and registered them as Case No. 16/06 to 123/06 under Section 187 of the Act against 108 shopkeepers including the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 and apprised him that they had been inducted in the said market long ago, i.e. prior to 1-9-1969 and have since been carrying on their businesses openly without any interruption from anyone and adversely as the rightful owner thereof.

3. It is the case of the petitioners before the SDM/Bishalgarh that the land was initially a jungle and the late Rajani Mohan Debbarma, the predecessor of the private respondents, had cleared the jungle about 50 years back and founded a market by allotting pieces of lands for erecting shops thereon under the name and style of “UDIYAMAN BAZAR’ and initiated the Bazar Committee for conducting business security in the market. Except for the said Rajani Mohan Debbarma, since deceased, who had some control over the land, neither the private respondents nor their predecessors ever had any possession over the same where the market is situated. As the private respondents had already been ousted of their possession before 1-9-1969, they cannot claim restoration of such lands to them. Notwithstanding the aforesaid factual position, the respondent No. 3 passed the said order dated 19-9-2007 directing the restoration of possession of the said lands to the private respondents without any legal basis and illegally.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners along with others preferred a revision petition U/s 95 of Act before the District Collector, West Tripura, which was registered as Revision Application No. 1 of 2007. The District Collector, however, by the order dated 17-4-2008 dismissed the revision application without recording any finding on the issues raised by the petitioners and merely mechanically affirmed the findings of the SDM/Bishalgarh. Again, aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred a second appeal being Second Appeal No. 4/2nd Appl/Sec/Rev/08 U/s 93(2)(b) of the Act. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners was again dismissed by the Second Appellate Authority by his order dated 15-7-2009, as contended by them, without proper application of mind and in a cryptic manner. This prompted the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to redress their grievance.

5. The writ petition is contested by the State-respondents and the private respondents by filing their respective affidavits. It is contended