Advocates:
['KOOMAR CHAKRABORTY', '', 'SAMARJIT BHATTACHARJEE', 'A DEBBARMA', 'KAWSIK NATH', 'Sr GA']

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C) 397 of 2022

Sri Tufani Ram Bin

----Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura & 4 Ors.

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. D Bhattacharjee, GA

Mr. S Saha, Adv

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

10.05.2022

Heard Mr. K Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S Saha,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order of eviction dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by

the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also

urged this court to stay the operation of the order dated 05.05.2022 till

disposal of the second appeal which was filed on 10.02.2022 (Anenxure-7 to

the writ petition). The said appeal was filed before the Secretary, Revenue

Department, Government of Tripura, the respondent No.2 herein.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 5 instituted

a proceeding against the petitioner and other occupiers of his land which,

Page 2 of 6

according to the respondent No. 5 is illegal in view of Section 187(1) of the

TLR & LR Act. The respondent No.5 filed one petition under Section 187(3) of

the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and the said petition was dismissed by the SDM,

Sadar, West Tripura by his order dated 14.09.2011 in case No. 1/R/06. It was

observed that there is no evidence to show that the recorded owner was

dispossessed by Kedar Bin and Madanlal Bin. The said order dated 14.09.2011

was appealed against at the instance of Tufani Ram Bin, one of the

possessors of the said land recorded in khatian No. 399 and 400. After the

revisional survey operation was complete, it was noticed that the plots No.

12316/P and 2318 in the old khatian No. 399 and 400 which were recorded in

the name of the petitioner had been recorded wrongly in the name of the

respondent No.5 in Khatian No. 1645/1.

According to the petitioner, he was possessing the land by way

of inheritance. A physical field inquiry was made in connection with the said

revenue case No. 36/2008 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. From

the report as submitted by the SDM, Sadar, it transpired that an area of 0.27

acres of land is in physical possession of the petitioner since long which has

been recorded wrongly in the Hal khatian published after the revisional survey

in the name of the respondent No.5 and others.

As the observation in the report was very clear, in terms of the

report of the SDM, khatian was corrected. In the khatian No. 1645/1, CS plot

No. 2316/P, RS plot No. 2822/P having area of 1.10 acre is recorded and in

the khatian No. 1645/2 and CS plot No. 2316/P, RS Plot No. 2823 having an

area of 0.24 acres has been recorded whereas in the khatain No. 1645/1, CS

Page 3 of 6

plot No. 2318, RS Plot No. 2828 having an area of 0.03 acres has been

recorded. Thus, total area of 0.27 acres has been ordered to be recorded in

the name of the petitioner.

Against that order as passed in revenue case No. 36/2008, the

review was preferred under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act by the respondent

No. 5. It has been observed in the review that the land was under peaceful

possession of the writ petitioner, namely, Tufani Ram Bin. Having observed

thus, the review under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act has been dismissed.

It appears further that the respondent No.5 herein filed an appeal

under Section 93(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 being Revenue Case No.

137/12.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has submitted that the writ petitioner has no knowledge about the institution

of the said appeal and he had been provided with no opportunity to appear

before the court but by the judgment dated 20.07.2012, the decision