The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to reappraise evidence or substitute its judgment for that of an inferior court unless there is a grave legal issue.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court for quashing & cancelling the judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2022. The petition has been filed for also quashing and cancelling the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the Estate Officer, BSNL Tripura BA, Agartala (Asstt. General Manager (HQ) O/o the GMTD, BSNL, Agartala 799001. The petitioners also prayed for passing an ad interim stay order, staying the operation of the judgment, dated 11.07.2022 passed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc Appeal No.11 of 2022 & the impugned order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the Asstt. General Manager (HQ) O/o the GMTD, BSNL, Agartala, whereby directing the petitioners to vacate the premises as described in the schedule of the impugned order, till disposal of the instant petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Assistant General Manager (HQ) BSNL, Tripura by similar and identical letters, dated 29.12.2021 asked each of the petitioners to make immediate payment of Rs.73,05,111/- as outstanding dues as penal rent of the quarter/land allegedly unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioners from 01.01.1982 to 31.2.2021. Along with the said letter, a purported calculation sheet was also annexed. By the said letters, each of the petitioners was asked to pay the alleged outstanding dues within 30 days from issuing of the said letter.

3. It is further stated by the petitioner in the plaint that in 1956 Lt. Subhash Ranjan Datta took the suit land forcibly into his possession. At that time, the suit land was lying vacant and Lt. Subhash Ranjan Datta after taking the suit land into his possession. Initially repaired and renovated the dilapidated kaccha structure standing thereon, to construct it into a hut fit for dwelling purpose. At that time, the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department was the owner of the suit land.

4. The petitioners jointly made response to the aforesaid letter, in writing by letter dated 21.01.2022. In the letter, dated 21.01.2022 it is specifically pointed out, that many years ago also recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was taken in respect to the quarter/land. It is also further contended that due to possession for more than 5 decades by deceased employee, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein over the land, the petitioners due to uninterrupted, open and adverse possession, initially by Lt. Subhash Ranjan Data and thereafter, by the petitioners and the India posts and Telegraphs Department, presently, the Department of Telecommunications has no right, title & interest over the said property as their right, title and interest had already extinguished.

5. Thereafter, on 02.02.2022 the respondent issued similar and identical letters to each of the petitioners. By that letters again the petitioners were requested to pay alleged dues of Rs.74,86,946/- within 15 days positively, and to transfer possession of the quarter to the Respondent. The petitioners made response to aforesaid letter, in writing by similar and identical letters dated 18.02.2022. By the letter dated 18.02.2022, the petitioners questioned the competency of respondent to act as the Estate Officer. The petitioners specifically contended that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid letter dated 02.02.2022.

6. Thereafter, on 23.03.2022, the respondent issued similar and identical notice under sub-section (1) and Clause B(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By such notice the petitioners were asked to appear in person on 07.04.2022 before the respondent to answer all material questions, connected with the matter. The petitioner No.1 made response to the above mentioned notice in writing by letter dated 04.04.2022. In the letter,