The court upheld the review jurisdiction under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and rejected bias allegations. It emphasized the necessity principle and the need for positive and cogent evidence to establish bias. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing title and boundaries in land disputes.

The writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.73/2016 [Sri Dulal Nath Bhowmik Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.74/2016 [Sri Sri Bikas Biswas & Anr. Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.], are combined for disposal by a common judgment and order as in both these writ petitions common grounds have emerged for challenging the order dated 19.12.2015 passed in Revenue Case No.321/2015 under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.73/2016] and order dated 19.12.2015 passed in Revenue Case No.321/2015 under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.74/2016].

2. Apparent it is, on the face of the records that, the order passed under Section 96 of the TLR and LR Act 1960, is instrumental in setting aside the order dated 10.07.2013 under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act 1960. By the said order dated 10.07.2013, it was directed that R.S. Plot No.3048 (sabek plot Nos.2482 and 2488(p)] measuring 0.200 acre from the Government khas khatian No.1/126 be recorded in favour of Shri Rajeev Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav in a new jote khatian in equal share. The said order dated 10.07.2013 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.73/2016], was so passed as according to the petitioners the said sabek plots of mouja Kunjaban were purchased by one Ramabatar Prasad Jadav. Even possession of said Ramabatar Prasad Jadav was confirmed by the civil court by the judgment dated 12.06.1976 delivered in T.S.93/1973 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.73/2016], as was instituted by one Shantimoy Chakraborty. However, the land measuring 10 gandas was recorded as khas land belonging to the Education Department. In that perspective, correction in the entry of the Record of Right was made and the said petition for correction under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act was allowed by the order dated 10.07.2013. By the order dated 19.12.2015 delivered in Revenue Case No.321/2015, the said order dated 10.07.2013 has been interfered and set aside.

3. After the said order dated 10.07.2013 under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act 1960 was passed, the Municipal Commissioner of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, had approached the Collector by the communication under No.F.105/North Zone/AMC/2014/127-130 dated 07.03.2015. A detailed report on the basis of the said communication was obtained. It has been observed in the order dated 19.12.2015 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.73/2016] that, before passing the order dated 10.07.2013 the District Collector did not issue any notice to the respondents i.e. the Government of Tripura and thus the State did not get any opportunity to place their version. Even the Collector did not conduct any enquiry through the SDM or DCM or equivalent Revenue Officer nor even tried to verify the original record from the office of the Director of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR), Government of Tripura, who is the official custodian of all old land records pertaining to khas and jote rather, the Collector only relied on the order of the Munsiff, Sadar. He simply arrived at his decision based on the decree passed by the Munsiff, Sadar in T.S.93/1973, ignoring the sanctity of the finally published land records. The Collector converted the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the TLR and LR Act into a petition under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act keeping the Government of Tripura in dark. It has been further observed by the District Magistrate & Collector in the said order dated 19.12.2015 that :

“As the status of land was Khas, the Ld. Collector in my opinion had no locus standi to convert the case to U/S 95 as any dispute over any Khas Land can be dealt by the Collector under Section 11 of TLR & LR Act, 1960. Thus disposal of case U/S 95 by the Ld. Collector appears to be improper as the said case does not attract the provision of said section. Under the circumstances as explicated abo