Point of law: Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. The vendors had correctly filed the proceedings under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act since their stand that the suit land was a private land was in conflict with the revenue records till then showing it as Government khas land. In any such proceedings, since there would be a dispute between an individual and the Government, presence of the Government was necessary.

JUDGMENT :

Akil Kureshi, J.

These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th November 2016 passed in WP(C) Nos.73 and 74 of 2016 respectively. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

[2] Facts being similar, we may record from WP(C) No.73/2016 and corresponding WA No.41/2018. These facts are as under :

The litigation pertains to revenue entries in relation to land bearing RS Plot No.3048/2008 [original Plot Nos.2482 and 2488(P)] admeasuring 0.200 acres of Government Khatian No.1/126, mouja Kunjaban (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘suit land’). The petitioner had purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed, dated 20th December 2013, from Sri Rajib Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the vendors’) who claimed their ownership over the land in question as being the predecessors-in-title of deceased Ramabtar Prasad Jadav. According to these vendors, Ramabtar Prasad Jadav had in turn purchased the suit land from one Jagmohan Goala under a registered deed dated 22nd March 1973. The vendors, Sri Rajib Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav had filed Revenue Case No.344/2013 before the District Collector, West Tripura under Section 11(3) of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (“TLR & LR Act” for short). This application of the vendors was suo motu converted by the Collector into proceedings under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act and such proceedings were disposed of by the Collector by an order dated 10th July 2013. In these proceedings, the vendors had produced a copy of the decree of a Civil Court in Case No. 93 T.S of 1973 which was instituted by one Shantimoy Chakraborty against Ramabtar Prasad Jadav seeking injunction against the defendant from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit land by the defendant. The vendors had pointed out that the Civil Court had dismissed the suit by a judgment and decree dated 12th June 1976 holding that the suit land was not Government khas land but was private land.

[3] The Collector, West Tripura, disposed of the said proceedings instituted by the vendors by an order dated 10th July, 2013. The Collector was principally guided by the decree of Civil Court in case of Shantimoy Chakraborty(supra). He noticed that in the suit, one of the issues raised was whether the suit land is Government Khas land by acquisition or covered by Kabala of the defendant dated 22nd March 1973. The Collector noted that the said issue was decided against the plaintiff holding that the land did not belong to the Education Department but was part of the Kabala of the defendant dated 22nd March 1973. The Collector thereupon passed the following order :

“ ………………….

I agree with the verdict & decree of Civil Court in favour of the Defendant i.e. the Lt. Ram Abatar Prasad Jadav father of the petitioners. As the Civil Court has decided that the Sabek Plot No.2482 & 2488 and corresponding to R.S. Plot No.3048 is purchased jote land of Ram Avtar Prasad Jadab of mouja Kunjaban record should be corrected accordingly and not necessary for further field enquiry and also hearing.

Hence it is ordered that :-R.S.Plot No.3048 (Sabek plot No.2482.2488(P)) land measuring 0.200 acre from the Govt. Khas Khatian No.1/126 will be recorded in favour of Shri Rajeeb Kumar Jadav and Smt. Neena Jadav in a new jote Khatian in equal share of mouja Kunjaban, Sadar, West Tripura. Let a copy be sent to SDM Sadar for incorporation in the ROR.”

[4] A public interest petition [WP(C)(PIL) No.15/2014] was instituted before the High Court concerning encroachments around water bodies situated in Agartala which the State was not showing seriousness in removing. The High Court had given directions to the State-authorities and authorities of Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) in the said PIL for removal of encroachments. The suit land was also situated in the periphery of a water body. It appears that the AMC had thereupon made inquiries with