The court mandates proper examination of title deeds and possession records in determining land ownership.

1. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2016, delivered in case No.13 / Appeal / Rev / Secy / 2015 under S.93(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, the petitioner namely Sri Sudhan Chandra Paul has filed this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India urging this Court to direct the revenue authorities to recall their said orders and pass the appropriate order for opening the fresh record of rights(khatian) recording his land in terms of the sale deed no.1-9108(Annexure - 1 to this petition).

3. From a reading of that sale deed, it would appear that the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 7 ganda and 2 kara from the plot no.8557 pertaining to khatian no.6491 on payment of the consideration from one Sri Upendra Chandra Das. The petitioner has further asserted that not only the petitioner, his two brothers purchased some land from the same vendor and from the same plot on payment of consideration. When the petitioner and his two brothers applied for mutation of the record and opening the new khatian in terms of the sale deed, the revenue authorities opened the khatian no.9685 jointly in the name of the brothers for a land measuring 0.112 acre in contravention of the statutory provision[see S.46 of the TLR & LR Act).

4. According to Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said land is also short by 0.038 acre in terms of the sale deed as stated. The petitioner had without delay filed a petition under S.95 of the TLR & LR Act for correcting the said record.

5. After hearing the said petition, the Settlement Officer, West Tripura, Agartala by the order dated 31.10.2014 on purported basis of the second field inquiry report has observed as under:

“Also expatiate in the field report that, during the field inquiry has given strong objection & obstruction form field inquiry work by Sri Manik Das S/o Haripada Das & he claim the question land of the applicant is in possession by him, though the question land is vacant land at present & as per statement of neighbor Smt. Anjali Sen Chowdhury W/o Mihir Sen Chowdhury & Sri Bidhubhusan Sarkar S/o Radhacharan Sarkar earlier it was vacant land.

From the above fact it is clear that, 1st & 2nd enquiry time the applicant failed to show his claim land peacefully.”

6. This Court could not make out head or tail out of this order and for that obvious reason, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under S.93(1) of the TLR & LR Act for mutating the record of rights showing the appropriate land in terms of the sale deed.

7. After hearing, by the impugned order dated 18.06.2016(Annexure - 7 to this petition) the Secretary, Revenue Department after observing the relevant fact has returned the finding as under:

“1. Appellant & respondent's names were recorded jointly in sabek khatian No.9685. The respondents No.1 & 2 sold out their entire shares of land to other parties prior to revisional survey operation and the purchasers have got mutation accordingly. But names of the respondents have not been deleted from the khatian No.9043/1-2 during incorporation in revisional survey operation, which is not correct.

2. It reveals that during revisional survey, the names of other co - sharers Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul have been wrongly recorded jointly in the khatian though both of them sold their respective shares. Both Krishnsdhan Paul and Ranjit Kumar Paul appeared before this court and also admi