Tripura High Court
Mr. P.D. Tiwari vs Mr. Ak Deb on 2 September, 2021
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 144/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.D. Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. J. Majumder, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Deb, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 02/09/2021 Heard Mr. PD Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AK Deb, learned counsel for the respondents The petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition has challenged the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishramganj Revenue Circle, Sepahijala District, the respondent no. 2 herein, wherein the petitioner was asked to vacate the land belonging to plots no. 1652 and 1649/5828 under Section 15(1) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, TLR & LR Act). From the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, it is surfaced that notice was served upon one Sri Indrajit Saha, son of Sri Pulin Chandra Saha of South Charilam, Sepahijala District. In response, said Indrajit Saha appeared before the Revenue Court for filing an application, and stated that he was the caretaker of the land in question, but, his father Sri Pulin Chandra Saha was the actual occupier of the land. In my opinion, it is hard to consume that Pulin Chandra Saha, being the actual occupier, as alleged by his son, Indrajit Saha, had no knowledge of the notice served upon his son. Inspite of that, Sri Pulin Chandra Saha did not think it necessary to appear and contest the suit claiming his impleadment in the proceeding as actual occupier of the land, mentioned in the notice. Even, neither Indrajit Saha nor Pulin Chandra Saha appeared-in-person before the notice server i.e. respondent no. 2, to respond to the notice of eviction. More importantly, it is stated at para 6 of the writ petition that Sri Indrajit Saha, the son of the petitioner by a communication dated 06.12.2019 informed the respondent no. 2 that he would not attend the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner was the occupier of the land. Ultimately the proceeding proceeded ex parte against Indrajit Saha, and vide order dated 11.12.2019, said Indrajit Saha was asked to vacate the land in question under plots no. 1652 and 1649/5828.
For convenience, the entire order sheet may be reproduced here-in- below, in extenso:
" ORDER SHEET DCM/Bishramganj/Case No. 01/19, U/s 15 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 The State of Tripura Vs Sri Indrajit Saha, S/o lt. Pulin Chandra Saha, vill & P.O. South Charilam, Sepahijala District Date of ORDER Signature Order Notice has duly been served upon Sri Indrajit Saha, S/o Sri Pulin ch. Saha of South Charilam, Sepahijala District to appear for hearing today i.e. on 09.12.2019 at 3.00 PM as per provision of Section 15(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 before this Court. But Sri Indrajit Saha OP did not turn up for hearing and as such he could not be heard and decided the case ex-parte.
It is evident from records that OP has filed an application dated 06.12.2019 stating why he shall not be able to attend the hearing and also referred discussion held on 05.12.2019 in my office chamber regarding reasonable cause & effect. OP in the application has stated inter-alia that his father had received a notice on 20.05.1982 by his father from Directorate of Land Records & Settlement, Agartala and till then lands in question are in occupation of his father & he is only caretaker of the lands on behalf of his father.
It is evident from records that no document/notice is found enclosed with the application dated 06.12.2019 as narrated in the application. It is also denied that there was a discussion with the OP in my office chamber on 05.12.2019. Further, it is not disclosed in the application dtd. 05.12.2019 by the OP as to the purpose of receiving the notice on 20.05.1982 and mere receipt of notice does not construe any right & title over any Government land. Thus, OP has failed to adduce any document evidence that he has accrued right & title over the lands. Perused the report dated 27.11.2019 of the Tehsilder of Uttar Charilam TK wherefrom it is evident that OP namely Indrajit Saha has unauthorizedly occupied Tilla land measuring 0.09 & 0.02 acres appertaining to RS plot nos. 1652 and 1649/5828 of Khatian no. 1/11 & 1/82 respectively by erecting tin shed fencing as well as constructing one temporarily tin shed structure on the land and the report is made part of this proceeding.
Considering the facts as stated above, I pass order that OP namely Sri Indrajit Saha will vacate his unauthorized occupation from the lands as well as also remove tin-shed fence and structure from the Government Khash lands appertaining to RS Plot Nos. 1652 & 1649/5828. OP is asked to comply the order on or before 17.12.2019 failing which this court will take over possession of the lands removing fence & structure erected on the lands.
The Tehsilder, Uttar Charilam TK is also directed to serve the order upon Sri Indrajit Saha, OP & return the service immediately, Tehsilder, Uttar Charilam TK is also directed to inform compliance of order of the court by the OP on 18th December, 2019 without fail for taking appropriate action from this end.
Sd/ Deputy Collector & Magistrate Bishramganj Revenue Circle 11/12/2019 I have already stated in the earlier paragraph that despite notice issued upon Indrajit Saha, who claims to be the caretaker of the land in question, and Pulin Chandra Saha having knowledge of said notice has skipped away from participating in the proceeding before the District Magistrate & Collector, Bishramganj.
At the time of hearing of this writ petition, this court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that Pulin Chandra Saha had been/has been possessing the land though they have claimed that they have been possessing the land for the last 70 years, which he failed. It is pertinent to mention here that, in the meantime many survey operations were conducted by the Revenue Department, Government of Tripura to record the name of the owner or possessor/occupier in the Record of Right (khatian) under the relevant provisions of TLR & LR Act, 1960. If a person is in possession of any land, his name must be shown as possessor in the Record of Right created by the Government of Tripura, but, the petitioner could not produce any record to justify that he has been possessing the land in question for the last 70 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a notice issued in the year 1982 when an inquiry was conducted by the concerned Tehsilder. That Tehsilder has submitted a report to the authority concerned that one Pulin Chandra Saha was occupying the land of plots no. 1652, 1651 and 5228 illegally. This court also made a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what was the result of that proceeding, but, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this court about the result, rather, he has submitted that no order was passed by the competent authority in this regard. The proceeding started in the year 2019, and in my opinion, this is a fresh proceeding. Fresh notice was issued upon Indrajit Saha, the son of the petitioner who was found in actual possession of the land and claimed to be the caretaker of the land, but, by filing a petition as per the enquiry report of the Tehsilder (Annexure R/3 of the counter affidavit). Strange enough, Sri Pulin Chandra Saha inspite of having knowledge of the fact that his son had been noticed to vacate the land, did not feel it necessary to participate in the proceeding, rather he had skipped himself from participating in the proceeding for the reason best known to him. Even the petitioner did not prefer appeal prescribed in the statute itself (Section 93 of the TLR & LR Act) against the order of respondent no. 2. There is also provision for review of any order, if sought for by any party interested under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1963, but, the petitioner without taking recourse of the aforesaid provisions inbuilt in the statute itself has filed the instant writ petition asking the court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, which, in my considered view, will be uncalled for and disapproved accordingly.
In my opinion, the instant writ petition is a frivolous petition. However, I refrain myself from imposing any cost. In the result, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE Saikat