Unauthorized cancellation of land allotment by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate is illegal; only the Collector retains authority to cancel allotments for non-fulfillment of purpose.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Khowai in T.A. No.9 of 2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No.79 of 2016.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit praying for granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from entering into the suit land and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the appellant herein.

3. The defendants after receipt of summons appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been possessing the suit land for over 40(forty) years but, suddenly, the defendants have started disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and have been trying to evict him from the suit land. He came to know that the suit land was allotted in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

4.1. Having come to learn about this fact of allotment, he filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura for cancellation of the allotment order.

4.2. On receipt of that application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura, Khowai District through Tehsilder, Kalyanpur T.K. had made an enquiry where it was reported that the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land.

4.3. On the basis of that report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura, Khowai held that the purpose for which the allotment was given in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not been achieved by the State of Tripura. Having held so, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had cancelled the allotment order which was issued in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

4.4. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on the strength of the said allotment order which was issued in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1980, they sold the suit property to the defendant No.3. As such, the plaintiff also challenged the said Sale Deed and prayed for cancellation of the same as void ab initio, since according to the plaintiff, there was no allotment order at all.

5. On the other, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement had pleaded that they are the rightful owners of the suit land. The suit land was allotted in favour of them and Record of Right(RoR), i.e. the Khatian also was prepared in their names. That Khatian was never challenged by the plaintiff.

5.1. Being the owner by dint of the said allotment of the land, they sold out the suit land to the defendant No.3, after receipt of sale permission on 02.06.2015 from DM & Collector, Khowai, Tripura.

5.2. The defendants also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land since the plaintiff being an army personnel used to remain outside the State of Tripura and he was never seen in and around the suit land during the last 40(forty) years. More so, after his retirement, the plaintiff was residing at Agartala and not in the suit land.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Judge had framed issues and on the basis of issues, evidence was recorded as adduced by the parties.

7. After completion of recording evidence, learned trial Judge heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and ultimately, he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Khowai, who also dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.

9. At the time of admission of the present appeal, following substantial question of law was formulated:

'(1) Whether