The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a citizen to mutation when the requirements under Section 46 of the Tripura Land Reform and Land Revenue Act, 1960 are fulfilled, and the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the arbitrary rejection of mutation based on extraneous matters.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased a plot of land measuring 0.23 acres by the registered sale deed no. 1-2817 dated 28.12.2016 from Debdas Das and Debasish Das. The said land pertains to khatian no. 2130 and khatian no. 1945 of Mouja - South Chandrapur under Tehsil - South Chandrapur, Udaipur Sub-Division and comprised in CS plot nos. 1979, 3455/5013 (part) measuring 0.04 satak in RS plot no. 1971, 3455/4889 (part) measuring 19 acres.

3. The petitioner after purchase applied for the mutation of the records and for opening a new khatian in his name on the strength of the said sale deed, but the mutation was not granted and rejected by the mutation officer by the order dated 20.05.2017 observing as under:

“Pursuant to the letter of the Inspector, Industrial Finance, Udaipur, Gomati District which has been issued/endorsed upon me by the concerned Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District vide No. F.5/55-3/SDM/UDP/TLR/2017/58-60 dated 22.06.2017 in connection with an FIR vide No. 524 dated 31.12.2012 was lodged at R.K. Pur P.S. against the said NBFC and subsequently, the case was handed over to CBI and later on the case was filed in the District Sessions Court, South Tripura, Udaipur and the case still Sub-judice in the Court.

Hence, the mutation case is hereby dropped until further communication is made to this end.”

4. Against that order passed by the mutation officer on 20.05.2017, the petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 93 (1)(a) of the Tripura Land Reform and Land Revenue Act, 1960 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District. The Sub Divisional Magistrate did not entertain the appeal and passed the order dated 28.08.2017 observing inter-alia as follows:

“Now, the court is of the view that though there is no evidence that the case has been concluded but the case is with the CBI and pending for final judgment by the Ld. District & Sessions Court. And the mutation was disallowed by the mutation officer on the ground that the petitioner could not submit original document. The concerned party may apply for fresh mutation u/s 46 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 after the final judgment. Thus, the case is hereby disposed off.”

The said order dated 28.08.2017 and the order dated 20.05.2017 are under challenge in this writ petition.

5. Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though there exists the alternative remedy for filing the second appeal but the exercise of the jurisdiction by both the courts below was without any authority of law and in defiance of the law. As such, it touches the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such the petitioner has approached this court. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has also submitted that the provisional attachment order is required to be passed by the Secretary, Government of Tripura under Tripura Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) (Amendment) Act, 2011 but no such proceeding has been initiated by the Secretary, Revenue Department till today and hence there cannot be any valid attachment proceeding before the Sessions Judge, Gomati, Tripura.

6. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that there is nothing wrong in this order. Moreover, if the petitioners had any grievance they might have approached the District Collector by filing the second appeal under Section 93(1)(b) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. Mr. Nath, learned Additional GA has continued to submit that one Sushanta Saha, i.e. the petitioner had applied for the mutation initially for 0.04 acres in RS plot no. 3455/5031 of Mouja- South Chandrapur and the mutation case was accordingly registered. Again another application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document