Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Rabindra Kr. Tripura, Son of Lt. Patrai Tripura & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corp. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 47 of 2010
Decided On : 20-02-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. D.K. Biswas, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A., Mr. Nepal Majumder, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a detailed evaluation of the land dispute, including the ownership of the land and the allotment or re-allotment of the land to the eligible petitioners, by the Revenue Department committee.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corp. Ltd. - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - The court addressed the dispute over the rubber plantation raised on the petitioners' land, which was taken over by the respondent. The court directed the Revenue Department to form a committee to evaluate the claims and counterclaims, determine the ownership of the land, and take necessary action to allot or re-allot the land to the eligible petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition against Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corp. Ltd. (TFDPC) for refusing to distribute the rubber plantation raised on their lands and distributing those plantations to other beneficiaries. The petitioners claimed to be original allottees or transferees of the forest land allotted to certain tribal persons in the 1970s. The Forest Department handed over an area of reserved forest land to TFDPC for developing rubber plantation, including the private land of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that TFDPC had taken over their land, grown the plantation, and denied them their land back when the plantation was ready to benefit them.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Revenue Department to form a committee to evaluate the claims and counterclaims, determine the ownership of the land, and take necessary action to allot or re-allot the land to the eligible petitioners. The court found that the dispute involved multiple components and required a detailed evaluation, which fell outside its jurisdictional frame.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the land in question belonged to the petitioners or some other persons, whether there was an assurance from TFDPC that the petitioners and other persons would be given the right to derive benefits from the rubber plantations within their jote land, and whether the allotment orders passed in favor of the petitioners or their predecessors were canceled by the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the Revenue Department to form a committee to evaluate the claims and counterclaims, determine the ownership of the land, and take necessary action to allot or re-allot the land to the eligible petitioners. The court found that the nature of the dispute required a detailed evaluation that fell outside its jurisdictional frame. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioners to challenge any adverse order in the statutory remedy available to them.
Final Decision: The court directed the Revenue Department to form a committee to evaluate the claims and counterclaims, determine the ownership of the land, and take necessary action to allot or re-allot the land to the eligible petitioners. The court found that no further relief could be granted to the petitioners, and the statutory remedy was available to them if any adverse order was passed in the proceeding for cancellation of allotment.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in order to raise their grievance against the action of the respondent namely Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corp. Ltd.(TFDPC, in short) by refusing to distribute the rubber plantation raised on their lands and distributing those plantations to other beneficiaries of the locality on depriving them.
2. On 16.12.2009, a notice was served on the Managing Director, TFDPC and the Division Manager, TFDPC asking them not to distribute the rubber plantation raised on their land to other beneficiaries of the locality.
In response to the said notice, the respondents No. 2 & 3 by their reply dated 21.12.2009 denied the claim of the petitioners. The writ petition was initially dismissed by the judgment dated 20.09.2013. The petitioners herein filed an intra-court appeal being W.A. 52 of 2013 against the said judgment dated 20.09.2013. The petitioners filed a special application in the said intra-court appeal being C.M. Appl. No.103 of 2013 by placing a series of documents, marked as documents No. 1 to 13. In the wake of submission of those documents, the Division Bench of this Court by their order dated 07.07.2014 had remitted the matter back for reconsideration and to take cognizance of the fresh document filed by the petitioners.
3. In the said order dated 07.07.2014, it has been observed inter alia:
“the appellants are either the original allottees or transferees from original allottees of the forest land which was allotted to in favour of certain tribal persons in the year 1970s. Some of the appellants claim to have original letters of allotment in their favour and some of the appellants claim to have become owners through sale deeds executed in their favour by the original allottees”
4. It has also been observed that in the year 1998, the Forest Department handed over an area of 13.51 acres of reserved forest (R.F.) land to the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation limited (TFDPC) for developing rubber plantation. During that process, not only the forest land but also the private land of the petitioners were taken in possession by the TFDPC. The petitioners have claimed that when they raised objections, they were assured that after plantation is raised and the rubber plantation is ready to benefit, the same would be given to the petitioners. Relying on the said assurance, they did not resort to further action in good faith. But when the rubber plantations are developed, the respondents, instead of handing the same over to the petitioners, came up with proposal to handover the plantation to some other tribals who had no right or interest on the land which the petitioners claim to be theirs.
5. The writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge for the reasons that the writ petitioners could not place on record any documents to show that they are original allottees or transferees of the original allotted land. After filing of the writ appeal, as stated earlier, the writ petitioners have filed a special petition to place on record those documents.
6. By the order dated 07.07.2014 it has also been observed by Division Bench of this Court that:-
“Without going into the correctness of the allegations now made in the supplementary affidavit or in the counter affidavit, we are clearly of the view that it would not be appropriate for us to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits without giving the learned Single Judge a chance of perusing the documents on which the appellants are now basing their case, Since these documents have been produced and they prima facie establish that the appellants have some right on the properties we feel that it would be fitness of the things if the learned Single Judge himself reconsiders the entire matter”
No further observations having relevance in the context has been made.
7. The petitioners
