Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tripura – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saraswati Ghosh (Biswas) W/o Shri Hiranmoy Biswas – Respondent
RSA Nos. 59 & 61 of 2012
Decided On : 23-09-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Chakraborty and Ms. A. Banik.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Mr. D.K. Biswas and Ms. B. Chakraborty.
Headnote:
Vesting - Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 134, Section 135, Section 136 - The court discussed the vesting of the suit land to the Government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. It considered the provisions of Section 134, Section 135, and Section 136 of the Act and their implications on the ownership and possession of the land. The court found that the suit land had been vested to the Government w.e.f. 15.04.1963 and was liable to be treated as the Government khash land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit land inherited from their predecessor, Akhil Chandra Ghosh. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the land was vested in the Government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit land had been vested to the Government w.e.f. 15.04.1963 and was liable to be treated as the Government khash land. As a result, the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondents was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the retention of the suit land by Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the right, title, and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land, and the vesting of the land in the Government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the suit land had been vested to the Government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, and was liable to be treated as the Government khash land.
Final Decision: The suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondents was dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside.
1. These are the appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC. In RSA No. 59 of 2012 [The Sub-Divisional Officer and Others vs. Saraswati Ghosh (Biswas) and Others], the judgment dated 21.04.2012 passed by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar [as he then was] in T.A. No. 14 of 2010 has been challenged. By that judgment dated 21.04.2012, the judgment dated 19.03.2010 delivered in T.S. No. 27 of 2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Kailasahar has been affirmed. In RSA No. 61 of 2012 [The Sub-Divisional Officer and Others vs. Saraswati Ghosh (Biswas) and Others] the judgment dated 21.04.2012 passed in T.A. No. 09 of 2009 delivered by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar (as he then was) has been challenged. By that judgment dated 21.04.2012 the judgment dated 19.03.2010 delivered in T.S. No. 27 of 2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Kailasahar has been affirmed.
2. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik learned counsel appearing vice Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 4, 9-10 and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the remaining respondents except the respondents No. 11-12. None appears for the respondents No. 11-12, despite due notice from this Court.
3. Both these appeals are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as an identical substantial question of law is wading through the challenge as made in these appeals. By the order dated 24.06.2013 the following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court for purpose of hearing these appeals:
“Whether the finding of the first appellate court returned by the impugned judgment in respect to the Kayemi Talluk Nos. 37/2 and 37/3 is perverse in view of the vesting under Provisions of Section 134 read with Section 135 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960?”
4. The suit land under consideration in both the appeals is as follows, in terms of the schedule appended to the plaint in the suit being T.S. No. 27 of 1995 (re-registered against T.S. No. 17 of 1995 which was earlier in the Court of the Munsif, Kailasahar, North Tripura).
Description of the suit land
District: North Tripura, P.S. Fatikroy, Mouja: Pabiacherra, Paragana; Birchandranagar, Khatian No. 1218.
(i)
Old C.S. Plot No. 376 class viti
1.21 acrs
(ii)
Old C.S. Plot No. 377 class viti
0.44 acrs
(iii)
Old C.S. Plot No. 378 class viti
0.36 acrs
Total
2.01 acrs
5. These appeals are emanating from the same suit. For purpose of appreciating the substantial question of law in the context of the relevant fact, the essential part of which may be noted at the outset.
6. The plaintiff-respondents pleaded that they inherited the land belonging to their predecessor, Akhil Chandra Ghosh. Akhil Chandra Ghosh purchased Kayemi Taluk by a registered kabala in 1356 T.E. The pro-defendant No. 5 trespassed illegally in the said land. Area of the suit land is 5 kanis 10 gandas. The pro-defendant in the suit is the cousin brother of the plaintiff. Akhil Chandra Ghosh during his lifetime leased out the suit land to Burma Oil Company Ltd. for a period of 20 years by executing a registered lease deed on 18.08.1959. The Burma Oil Company (BOC, in short) was dissolved and the I.O.C. took over its estate. The pro-defendant No. 7, the IOC stepped into the shoe of the BOC and became the lessee under the said lease deed dated 18.08.1959.
7. Lease was supposed to be expired in the year 1979, it expired without any renewal. In the meanwhile, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, TLR & LR Act) came into force in that area w.e.f. 15.04.1963 as regards the Taluki land. The rights of the intermediary were veste
