Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 111
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Ajit Kumar Debbarma - Appellant
Versus
Malin Das & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 44 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Allotment and Ownership
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Allotment Law - Cancellation of allotment - Cancellation of land allotment by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate found unauthorized; it is the authority of the Collector to cancel allotments based on state purpose, within a reasonable time limit. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed uninterrupted possession of the suit land for 40 years. He filed for injunction against the defendants, who claimed ownership based on allotment and Khatian. A Sub-Divisional Magistrate's inquiry affirmed the plaintiff's possession, leading to the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The appellate courts found the plaintiff failed to prove possession or challenge defendants' claims, and unauthorized cancellation of the allotment was deemed illegal.
Issues: The case scrutinized the legality of the allotment cancellation and the plaintiff's claim of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision emphasized that allotment cannot be canceled by a third party and must be sanctioned by the appropriate authority. The plaintiff's inability to produce necessary documents undermined his claim.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Debnath, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Kousik Roy, Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, Advocates, for the Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over possession and allotment of land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of both parties regarding possession and ownership. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of authority in cancelling allotment orders. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. illegal cancellation of allotment order. (Para 18) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal with no costs. (Para 19 , 20) |
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
