Tripura High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tripura on 13 May, 2020
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA 9 of 2018
1(a) Smt. Suprabha Adhikari,
wife of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, Badharghat, A.D. Nagar, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
(b) Smt. Yamuna Chakraborty,
wife of Sri Chandan Chakraborty,
daughter of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari resident of
Teliamura, Ghilatali, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai
(c) Smt. Swapna Adhikari (Bhattacharya),
wife of Sri Bijan Bhattacharya,
daughter of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari resident of
Suryapara, P.S. A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura
(d) Smt. Anjana Chakraborty,
wife of Sri Nabarun Chakraborty,
daughter of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari resident of
Beltali Road No.12, P.S. A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura
(e) Smt. Mitali Adhikari,
wife of Sri Prasanta Bhattacharjee,
daughter of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari resident of
Suryapara, P.S. A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura
(f) Smt. Rupali Adhikari (Deb),
wife of Sri Shantu Deb,
daughter of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari resident of
Nagicherra, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
2. Sri Nityananda Adhikari,
son of late Sachindra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, Badharghat, A.D. Nagar, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
3. Sri Gobinda Chandra Adhikari,
son of late Sachindra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, Badharghat, A.D. Nagar, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
4. Smt. Manju Adhikari Chakraborty,
wife of Sri Ashu Chakraborty,
daughter of late Sachindra Adhikari, resident of Ishanpur,
P.O. Panchabati, P.S. Mohanpur, District- West Tripura
5(a) Smt. Milan Chakraborty,
wife of late Janendra Chandra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, A.D. Nagar,P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
Page 2 of 10
(b) Sri Partha Sarathi Adhikari,
son of late Janendra Chandra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, A.D. Nagar,P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
(c) Sri Siddhartha Adhikari,
son of late Janendra Chandra Adhikari, resident of
Chowrangipara, A.D. Nagar,P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura.
....PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary Revenue,
West Tripura
2. The Director,
Land Record & Settlement, Government of Tripura,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
3. The District Magistrate & Collector,
West Tripura District, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
... DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS
For Appellant (s ) : Mr. SM Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Ms. P. Sen, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
Date of hearing : 28.01.2020
Date of delivery of judgment : 13.05.2020
& order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. This second appeal arises against the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. Title Appeal 7 of 2017 upholding and/or affirming the judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no.3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Title Suit 83 of 2014.
2. The plaintiff-appellants (here-in-after referred to as the appellants) stated that the area of land measuring more or less 4 kanis originally was within Kaiyami Taluk No. 169 and the said land inter alia other lands were in the name of Page 3 of 10 Manmohan Datta and a chita khatian (exhibit-A) was created in his name showing him as jotedar of the same. After the death of said Manmohan Datta, the said land was amicably partitioned amongst the legal heirs and one of the said legal heirs, namely, Dwijendra Lal Datta transferred 4 kanis of jote land in favour of 3 persons, namely, (i) Sachindra Chandra Adhikari (now deceased), (ii) Sri Jnanendra Chandra Adhikari and (iii) Rajendra Chandra Adhikari (since deceased). The said 3 persons were the full blooded brothers. The appellants no. 1(a) (wife), 1(b) to (f) (daughters) of late Gouranga Chandra Adhikari who was one of the sons of late Sachindra Chandra Adhikari and appellants no. 2 to 4 herein are the legal heirs of late Sachindra Chandra Adhikari being the sons and daughters respectively. One of the brothers, namely, Rajendra Chandra Adhikari was a bachelor. So, the appellants herein also inherited the properties of Rajendra Chandra Adhikari. The appellants of this appeal are all peasants and have been growing paddy on the said purchased land since purchase which is the only source of their livelihood.
3. It is the case of the appellants that Sachindra Chandra Adhikari and appellant no. 5 have applied for mutation but, ultimately they did not get it for certain unknown reasons. It is the further case of the appellants that at one point of time Sachindra Chandra Adhikari (father-in-law of the appellant no. 1(a), grand- father of appellants no. 1(b) to (f) and father of plaintiff-appellants no. 2 to 4) and the appellant no.5 could learn that their said jote land had been recorded in khas khatian behind their back. That prompted the appellants to file an application before the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura under Section 11(3) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 for correction of Record of Right and for creating jote khatian in their name.
4. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura caused necessary field verification on the basis of the said application filed by the appellants, and it was revealed from the report of the revenue officials (Exhibit 10) that the land in question was under the possession of the appellants, but, the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura most surprisingly brushed aside the said report (Exhibit
10) and rejected the petition filed under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act with Page 4 of 10 purported findings that the said land was the land of ceiling excess of Maharani Kanchan Prava Devi and for that reason, it could not be recorded in the jote khatian of the appellants by passing an order dated 03.03.2014. The appellants had filed a case bearing Title Suit 83 of 2014 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no.1, West Tripura, Agartala under Section 11(4) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 which was ultimately heard and decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no.1, West Tripura, Agartala but, the said court had dismissed the suit.
5. Challenging the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no.1, West Tripura, Agartala, the appellants had preferred First appeal in the court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala vide Title Appeal 7 of 2017 and on 31.01.2018, the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala had dismissed the said appeal of the appellants affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. Hence, this second appeal before this court.
6. This court while admitting the appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the chita khatian records the ownership of the land or can it be treated as a document for determining the title of the land? And
(ii) Whether the finding as returned by the courts below are outcome of the non-appreciation of the records in the legal perspective?
7. Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel has contended that the dismissal of the suit and subsequent First appeal by the learned courts below are highly arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this court that in the instant suit the State-respondents represented by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura didnot contest the suit by filing written statement. However, in course of trial, the respondents had cross-examined the witnesses as produced by the appellants. The submission of learned senior counsel is primarily centred around the fact that the suit land was never a khas land, but, was a jote land in the name of late Manmohan Datta, as settled by the erstwhile intermediary Maharani Kanchan Prava Devi. After the introduction of TLR and LR Act, 1960, Page 5 of 10 all lands in the State of Tripura were vested to the government and after settlement every tenant holding any land under the intermediary became a tenant directly under the Rayat of the State and, therefore, there was no ambiguity of jote right of the appellants over the said land.
7.1. The next submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the ceiling surplus provision as envisaged under Section 164 of the TLR & LR Act cannot be invoked in the instant case because the said provision was introduced in the Act on 24.01.1971 whereas the land in question was purchased in the year 1962 i.e. much before the law relating to the ceiling surplus came into force.
7.2. The next plank of submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that it is the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura who had appointed his agent to make a spot verification to remove all doubts about the real possessors of the suit land. His field officer has submitted a report which in course of trial has been taken into proof and marked as Exhibit-10, wherein it has been specifically reported that the appellants have been possessing the suit land since purchase of the land by their predecessor.
7.3. Further, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that one of the grounds taken by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura while rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 11(3) of the TLR & LR Act is that the appellants could not furnish any satisfactory documents that the land in question was partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Sachindra Lal Datta and for that reason, the appellants cannot claim as the owner of the suit land. This finding of the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura has faced severe criticism from the learned Senior Counsel for the reason that as he has urged that it is not for consideration of the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura whether the land has been partitioned or not between the co-sharers or co-owners. If the land is not partitioned that would mean that all the co-sharers or co-owners of the land are the joint owners of the said land.
7.4. Finally, learned Senior Counsel while submitting the legal validity of chita khatian has drawn my attention to Section 19 of Rules Relating to Survey & Settlement i.e. Jarip-o-Bandobasta Sambandhiya Niyamabali (here-in-after Page 6 of 10 referred to as 'Bandobasta Rules) wherein it was clearly stated that the chita khatian has been treated as Record of Right at that prevailing time and subsequently when the TLR & LR Act came into force, as per Section 199, the earlier laws relating to land revenue and land records has been repealed and in the said provision of law it has been envisaged that:-
(1) On and from the date on which any of the provisions of this Act are brought into force in any area in the Union territory of Tripura, the enactment specified in the schedule or so much thereof as relate to the matters covered by the provisions so brought into force shall stand repealed in such area;
(2) The repeal of any enactment or part thereof by sub-section (1) shall not affect-
(a) The previous operation of such enactment or anything duly done not affect,
(b) Any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred under such enactment.
7.5. Based on the aforesaid law, learned Senior Counsel submits that on bare reading of the said proviso, it transpires that those who are the jotedar under the old law automatically becomes Raiyat under the TLR & LR Act having right, title and interest upon the respective lands.
8. I have considered the rival contentions appearing for the parties to the lis. I also have perused the judgment passed by the learned courts below. Both the courts below have held that chain of title has not been proved in the instant case. According to the learned courts below, the appellants have failed to furnish any document to establish the fact that at any point of time Maharani Kanchan Prava Devi had transferred her ownership over the land in favour of Manmohan Datta by way of legal document. I have also perused Exhibit-5 which are revenue receipts. It is found that one Dwijendra Lal Datta used to pay rent to Maharani Kanchan Prava Devi.
Page 7 of 109. Now, keeping in mind the substantial questions of law, as formulated, let this court first examine as to whether the chita khatian records the ownership of the land or can it be treated as document for determining the Title of the land?
9.1. It is settled proposition of law that chita khatian or khatian, in whichever term it may be referred, is not a document conferring Title upon any person or persons. Further, it is a document which draws a presumption about the possession of a person or persons over the recorded plot of land which also can be rebutted by way of cogent evidence.
10. I have meticulously gone through Section 19 of the Rules Relating to Survey & Settlement i.e. Jarip-o-Bandobasta Sambandhiya Niyamabali. I have also perused Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 in perspective of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, keeping in view the submission of the learned Senior Counsel.
11. According to this Court, correct interpretation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, would be that any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, created or incurred by any person or persons under such enactment shall not adversely affect any person or persons of the earlier law relating to Bandabasta Rules.
12. In the instant case, yes, it is true that chita khatian was prepared in favour of Manmohan Datta. As this court held earlier in the preceding paragraphs that it is a document which symbolizes the possession of a party over the recorded plots of land but, it is neither a document of Title nor does it confer title upon anyone for certain land. By dint of this khatian, Manmohan Datta was possessing the suit land only, but, he has not accrued any Title. It is equally true that the predecessors of the appellants came into possession by virtue of the Sale Deed executed by Dwijendra Lal Datta, one of legal heirs of late Manmohan Datta and since then, the appellants have been possessing the suit land. But, the appellants have failed to prove the title acquired by late Manmohan Datta over the suit land. In other words, the appellants herein could not introduce any such document to substantiate the fact that as to how late Manmohan Datta, the predecessor of Dwijendra Lal Datta became the owner of the suit land. This is where the chain of title is missed.
Page 8 of 1013. The field verification report (exhibit-14) clearly establishes that the appellants have been in possession of the suit land and, such possession cannot be disturbed without due course of law. I am in full agreement with the findings of the learned courts below that the materials available on record clearly proves that Maharani Kanchan Prava Devi was the superior landlady and she has never transferred the ownership of the land in favour of Manmohan Datta. So, Manmohan Datta or his successor-in-interest have never acquired the benefit of ownership over the suit land and for the same reason, the benefit of ownership cannot be said to have been accrued by the appellants in terms of clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960.
13.1. In view of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, the appellants can at best claim the benefit of possessory right or privilege of chita khatian in the name of Manmohan Datta, but, not in any way they can claim that they have acquired title or ownership over the suit land by dint of chita khatian. Accordingly, the first question formulated, as stated above, has been decided by this court in the above terms.
13.2. The contention of learned senior counsel that under the operation of old law, the appellants became raiyat of the suit land has no merit. The expression 'raiyat' as per section 2(s) is defined in the TLR & LR Act which is as under:
'Raiyat' means a person who owns land for purpose of agricultural paying land revenue to the government and includes the successors-in- interest of such person.
13.3. Here, the words 'who owns' are very significant. Ownership of a land or thing is created by a valid legal document through recognized means or process or procedure of transfer as envisaged under the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 and following the provision of Indian Registration Act, 1908.
13.4. As I have said earlier, in this case, this court does not find any document or material conferring such ownership or title upon the appellants and, thus, I repel the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the appellants have become Raiyat under the TLR and LR Act, 1960 in view of the benefit they accrued under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the TLR & LR Act.Page 9 of 10
14. Now, coming to the second substantial question of law, as formulated, Whether the finding as returned by the courts below are outcome of the non- appreciation of the records in the legal perspective?
14.1. This point almost covers the discussion that has been outlined here- in-above. The grievance of the appellants is that the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura has arbitrarily rejected the field verification report i.e. Exhibit-14.
14.2. In my opinion, the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura ought to have accepted the report of his own officer for the reason that the State- respondents have failed to furnish any other evidence which can falsify the truthfulness of Exhibit-14 i.e. report of the field officer. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that they are the possessor of the suit land is accepted by this court.
14.3. Accordingly, the respondents may correct the concerned Record of Right in the light of the above observation in regard to the possession of the appellants.
14.4. However, both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellants, both oral and documentary that the appellants are the possessors of the suit land. Exhibit-14, the Field Verification Report of the authorized agent/ official of the Collector further fortifies the fact that the appellants have been possessing the suit land for the last several years. The State- respondents have failed to rebut this evidence in regard to the possession of the appellants over the suit land.
15. The appellants have laid much emphasis on the Sale Deed (exhibit-1) by dint of which their predecessors had purchased the land from the legal heir of Manmohan Datta. Both the courts below have considered the legality of the Sale Deed (exhibit-1) and while discussing this aspect, both the courts below found that the appellants could not produce any document to justify the chain of title. This court does not find any error in the findings of the learned courts below on this point.
16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid analysis and the materials on record, I find no merit in the present second appeal to declare the right of ownership of the Page 10 of 10 appellants over the suit land. The appellants have failed to establish the chain of Title/ownership over the suit property and, as such, they are not entitled to such reliefs. However, the possession of the appellants over the suit land has been established, and to this extent the order of District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura dated 03.03.2014 is interfered with declaring the decree of confirmation of possession of the appellants over the suit land.
17. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part, in the above terms.
Decree may be drawn accordingly.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE Saikat