Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Binod Behari Biswas, s/o late Radha Charan Biswas - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 628 of 2015
Decided On : 14-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Sengupta
For the Respondents: Ms. A.S. Lodh, Mr. A. De
The court emphasized the need for appropriate inquiry and legal authority in converting jote land into khash land, highlighting the protection of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
TLR & LR Act - Land Dispute - Section 95 - Order V Rule 9(5) of the CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order regarding the drawing of a road on their land under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act. The respondent claimed ownership of the land and that the road existed since long. The settlement officer's scrutiny and Amin's report supported the petitioner's contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order converting the petitioner's land into government khash land was illegal and set it aside. The District Collector was reserved the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry.
Issues: Ownership of the land, existence of the road, legality of the order converting the land into government khash land
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned order was in contrast to Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that the Settlement Officer did not have the power to convert jote land into khash land without appropriate inquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with the liberty reserved to the District Collector to conduct a fresh inquiry.
Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, but none appears for the respondent No.4.
2. On 16.12.2015, notice was issued on the respondent No.4. It appears from the note of the Registry dated 15.02.2016, that the acknowledgement card has not been received by the Registry till this day. As such, this court deems service on the respondent No.4 in view of the provisions of Order V Rule 9(5) of the CPC.
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2012, delivered in Case No. 617 /2012 by the settlement officer, West Tripura, Agartala in a proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act whereby it has been ordered that the road on the land measuring 0.290 acre comprised in the new plots No. 18839 and 18802, corresponding to C.S. plots No. 1200 and 1201 recorded in the khatian No. 4910 of mouza Jogendranagar shall be drawn in the map relating to 'Khash khatian' after allotting a separate plot no. under mouza Jogendranagar. The respondent No.3 herein filed a petition before the settlement officer, West Tripura, Agartala claiming that he is the owner of the said land under mouza Jogendranagar and the said road existed since long. But the road has not been drawn in the settlement map. Since the road is not drawn in the map, the writ petitioners and others are creating obstructions in using the said road. The writ petitioner raised serious objection against the petition filed by the respondent No.3 before the settlement officer asserting that he purchased pieces of land measuring 0.20 acre and 0.27 acre by two separate registered sale deeds being No. 14000 dated 10.08.1994 and No. 15510 dated 12.09.1997 from one Prafulla Biswas, the respondent No.4 herein. Only 0.41 acre of land has been recorded in the khatian No. 8259. According to the writ petitioner, the said road exists on his purchased land and it is not a government road but a personal road. But the respondent No.4 herein (the OP No.1 in the proceeding under section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960) denied that claim and asserted that the road existed since long and the AMC authority has converted the road into a bricksoling road.
4. The Settlement Officer on the purported scrutiny of the schedule of the purchased land, as recorded in the Registered sale deed No. 15510 dated 12.09.1997, has observed as under :
"the Northeast boundary of his purchased land was road i.e. the road in question was not the purchased land of the OP No.3. It also appears that the local people spared land for the road since long ago but it was not drawn in the map."
5. The settlement officer deputed one Amin for physically surveying the land in question and to make report. From the records produced by the respondent No.2, it appears that the Amin so deputed by the settlement officer, after field inquiry submitted his report on 10.12.2012 and he has observed that on the new plots viz. 18830/21315, 18829, 18833, 1318837, 18838, 18839, there exists a road and according to the Amin so deputed by the settlement officer, the said road is comprised of various pieces of jote (private) land and shown in the plot no. 18833/A, which has been shown in the annexed map. From the khatian No. 8259 of mouja Jogendranagar which has been mutated in the name of the writ petitioner, it appears that the writ petitioner is the holder of title in respect of new plot No. 18837 [corresponding to old plot no. 1195] and new plot no. 18838 and [corresponding to old plot no. 1196].
6. From the Amin's report it appears that the road exists on both the plot nos. 18837 and 18838, meaning the Amin's report supports the contention of the writ petition. Even though, the settlement officer has scrutinized the sale deed no. 5510 dated 12.09.1997 but from the schedule of the said sale deed it appears that the old plo
