Advocates:
['Mr I CHAKARABORTY', '', 'Mr S K PAL', 'Mr J PAL', 'GA', '', 'ASST SG', 'BISWANATH MAJUMDER', 'Mr P K DHAR', 'P SAHU']

Page 1 of 3

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C) 434 OF 2020

Smt. Aditi Debbarma (Ghosh)

… Petitioner

Vrs.

The State of Tripura & 6 Ors.

…Respondents.

Present:

For the petitioner (s)

: Mr. I. Chakraborty, Advocate.

For the respondent (s)

: Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. G.A.

Mr. P. Sahu, Advocate.

Mr. Biswanath Majumder, Asst.SG.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

04.05.2021

Judgment & Order (oral)

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura in Revision

Case No.01/REV/COMM/2003 titled as Sri Nakshtra Bikram Kishore

Debbarma Vrs. The State of Tripura & 2 Ors.

Briefly stated, the revision case No.01/2003 had arisen out

of the order dated 24.02.2003 passed by the High Court in WP(C)

No.469/2002 titled as Pritwish Debbarma Vrs. The State of Tripura &

Ors. The said writ petition was disposed off by the High Court vide order

dated 24.02.2003, which reads as under:-

<I have heard Mr.K.N.Bhattacharjee, learned senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the

petitioner.

Page 2 of 3

Mr. Bhattacharjee, submits that appropriate remedy is

by filing a revision petition under Section 95/96 of TLR and LR

Act. Accordingly, he prays to withdraw the petition with liberty

to file a revision application.

Prayer is allowed. The petition is disposed of as

withdrawn with liberty to file a revision petition under Section

95/96 of TLR and LR Act.

The order is passed after hearing Mr. U.B.Saha,

learned Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned

Counsel for the state-respondents.=

Accordingly, having fortified with the order dated

24.02.2003, the petitioner, Sri Nakshatra Bikram Kishore Debbarma had

filed the revision application before the revenue authority and the said

application was registered as revision case No.01/REV/COMM/2003.

The said revision application stood disposed by order dated 14.03.2019

whereby and whereunder the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,

Govt. of Tripura held that the application being review application under

Section 96 of the TLR and LR Act was time-barred and accordingly, the

said revision application was dismissed.

The said order of dismissal is under challenge before this

Court. I have meticulously perused the order dated 24.02.2003. A plain

reading of the order reveals that while disposing of the said writ petition,

the learned counsels appearing for the State Government did not submit

anything about limitation. The High Court directed the petitioner to file

revision petition without questioning the point of limitation. The point of

limitation was also not brought to the notice of the High Court. The entire

episode makes it clear that High Court had straightway directed the

petitioner to file revision application meaning thereby the point of

limitation will not come in the way of filing the revision petition.

A bare reading of the order dated 14.03.3019 passed by the

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura, it makes it

Page 3 of 3

clear that the revisional authority had treated the petition as review under

Section 96 of the TLR and LR Act and dismissed the revision application

as time barred.

In my opinion, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

could not read and construe the order dated 24.02.2003 in its true spirit

and language. Accordingly, the order dated 14.03.2019 stands set aside.

Consequently, the revision case No.01/REV/COMM/2003 is

restored. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura

is directed to hear and dispose off the revision application filed by the

petitioner on merits in accordance with law.

Considering the period of pendency of the disputes as raised

in the writ petition, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, G