Civil Court decrees must be respected by Revenue Courts; cancellation of land allotments requires statutory authority and adherence to reasonable timelines.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

2. The petitioners have approached this court by way of filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2014, passed by the respondent No. 2 in DM Case No. 32/2012, whereby the land allotted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The petitioners herein have further sought for a direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2014.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

3.1 The petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 herein are the successors in title of deceased Manoranjan Roy. Manoranjan Roy was allotted government land in the year 1973. The successors in title of deceased Manoranjan Roy filed a Civil Suit bearing No. T.S. 02 of 2013 before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division against the respondents Gopal Roy and others. With respect to the suit land, one Satsang Ashram also seems to be projected its claim and it is revealed that Gopal Roy and 'Satsang Ashram' also have interconnection. Be that as it may, the case of the plaintiff in the said title suit was for restoration of the possession of the suit land which was granted to the plaintiff, Manoranjan Roy, but, later on they were dispossessed.

3.2 The Civil Court by its judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013 held that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants and are also entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into suit land and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. In the operative portion, it was declared that the plaintiffs have the right, title, interest of the suit property and were entitled to retain the possession after recovery thereof.

3.3 The respondent Gopal Roy herein as well as Satsang Ashram committee and others who were the defendants of the said civil suit challenged the judgment of the civil court before the learned District Court, however, the appeal was dismissed on 18.05.2015. The defendants thereupon filed Second Appeal 27 of 2015 before this court. Second Appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 04.05.2018 making following observations:

'15. Having regard to all these, this court is of the view that the declaration of the title as made by the courts below in terms of the order dated 11.08.2014 delivered in DM Case No. 32/2012 has become contingent upon the outcome of the proceeding as pending for decision. As it has been observed by the competent authority, the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and the Satsanga Ashram is in the possession of the suit land and they have been asked to file proper application for the allotment. The determination of possession is also contingent as there is no evidence by which the observation made in the order dated 11.08.2014 can be rebutted. In the order dated 11.08.2014 it has been clearly held that the physical possession of the suit land was with the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 or their predecessor namely, Manoranjan Roy since 1963. Unless the superior forum interfered with the said observation, it has to be deemed that the defendants were in continuous possession over the suit land since 1963. Unless the superior forum interfered with the said observation, it has to be deemed that the defendants were in continuous possession over the suit land since 1963. Thus the entire gamut of possession would be contin