Revenue officers can convert appeals to revisions under the TLR & LR Act without explicit legal barriers, ensuring the interests of justice are served.

1. By filing this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenged judgment and order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department of the Government of Tripura in Revenue Appeal case No.17 of 2007.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. B. Dutta for the State respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel, Mr. P. Chakraborty for respondent No.2.

3. At the outset learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty for the petitioner has prayed for treating the present petition as one under Art.227 of the Constitution in addition to Art.226 of the Constitution for granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel of the respondents have no objection and therefore the petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is also treated as one under Art.227 of the Constitution.

4. Smt. Kanung Khatrani, since deceased (the original petitioner), the predecessor of the present petitioner, Smt. Tara Sinha donated 0.02 acres of land to respondent No.2, Sri. Chandra Kumar Sinha by executing a registered deed of gift bearing registration No.1-1674 dated 17.06.1992. It is contended by the petitioner that the gifted land comprising an area of 0.01 decimal was covered by Hal Plot No.3166 and another 0.01 decimal was covered by Hal Plot No.3167. After such donation of the land by the predecessor of the present petitioner, the respondent No.2 applied for mutation in his name and accordingly M.R. Case No.176/1993 was registered and the mutation officer recorded 0.02 acres of land in the name of respondent No.2, but it is alleged that the entire 0.02 acres of land mutated in the name of respondent No.2 was taken from plot No.3167 and no land was taken from plot No.3166 though the petitioner actually gifted equally from both the plots. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revisional application under S.95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, TLR & LR Act, 1960) before the Collector, North Tripura for correction of the record of right and that was registered as Revision Case No.65 of 2006. After hearing both side the Collector, North Tripura District, Kailashahar by order dated 27.08.2007 allowed the revisional application and set aside the order of mutation passed by the mutation officer and directed correction of the record of right according to the prayer of the petitioner that the gifted land comprised equally from both the plot Nos. 3166 and 3167.
4.1. Felt aggrieved, the respondent No.2, Chandra Kumar Sinha preferred Revenue Appeal No.17 of 2007 before the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department of the Government of Tripura under S.93(1)(c) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department by impugned order dated 22.02.2010 converted the appeal to a revisional application and allowed it in favour of the respondent No.2 and thereby set aside the order passed by the Collector and upheld the order passed by the mutation officer.
4.2. Felt aggrieved, Smt. Kanung Khatrani, since deceased, the predecessor of the present petitioner, filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department of Government of Tripura.

5. Appearing for the petitioner learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that a revenue officer has no plenary power to convert an appeal to a revisional application and hence order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department is wrong and liable to be interfered. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, under the scheme of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, an appeal lies against an original order only, unde