Tripura High Court
Sri Niranjan Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 5 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 255
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page - 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
W.P(C) No.288 of 2015
Sri Niranjan Debbarma, S/o. Lt. Dhirendra Ch. Debbarma,
Krishnanagar, near Judge‟s Quarter, P.S. West Agartala, District-
West Tripura.
............... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Revenue
Commissioner, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Lichubagan, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin 799006.
2. The Pragati Vidya Bhawan, to be represented by the Secretary of its
Managing Committee, Pragati Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West
Tripura, P.O. Agartala, Pin-799001.
3. The Managing Committee, The Pragati Vidya Bhawan, to be
represented by its Secretary Pragati Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, P.O. Agartala, Pin-799001.
4. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, P,O. Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
5. Sri Swapan Kumar Das, TCS (Tripura Civil Service), Senior Deputy
Collector, Office of the District Magistrate & Collector, West
Tripura District, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala, West
Tripura, Pin-799001.
............... Respondent(s).
_B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 14th May, 2020
Date of Judgment : 5th August, 2020
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
Page - 2 of 8
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the orders dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, West Tripura and that of the District Collector, West Tripura, Agartala dated 30.03.2012.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner belongs to „Tripuri‟ Community which is a recognized Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tripura. He along with other family members claims to be the owner of land admeasuring 1.293 acres bearing Khatian No.2876 of Mouja Agartala, West Tripura District. According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to one Kusum Kumar Debbarma. The petitioner claims ownership of the land on the basis of a long line of successions claiming, to have inherited the land from his ancestors who trace their origin to said Kusum Kumar Debbarma. We are not concerned with this complex family tree. The petitioner claims to be representing the interests of other co-sharers of the land also. The land is presently occupied by the respondent No.2 Pragati Vidya Bhavan. The petitioner contends that a tribal land is in possession of a non-tribal and, therefore, the revenue authorities should evict such unauthorized Page - 3 of 8 occupation and handover vacant possession of the land to the petitioner for and on behalf of all co-owners. With such a prayer the petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, West Tripura by filing Misc. (Revenue) No.03 of 2009. In such application the petitioner relied on Section 187B of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (TLR & LR Act, for short) and contended that he was filing the said application for and on behalf of all co-sharers. He contended that they were dispossessed by the occupants after 01.01.1969. It is, therefore, necessary that their possession be restored.
[3] The Pragati Vidya Bhavan opposed the said application by filing a detailed reply in which it was contended that in the Khatian pertaining to the land in question of the year 1968 the name of Pragati Vidya Bhavan is shown as owner and occupier. Therefore, the revenue authority has no jurisdiction under the TLR & LR Act. It was contended that Kusum Kumar Debbarma had sold the land to one Smt. Chandratara Devi under a registered sale deed executed in 1935. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner and other family members have no right title or interest in the suit land. It was contended that the said opposite party had purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1964 from Page - 4 of 8 its owners Jiban Kanai Paul and Nirmala Bala Paul and since then it is an actual possession of the land.
[4] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 10.11.2011 dismissed the application of the petitioner. It was noted that the Khatian pertaining to the land which was attested on 06.04.1968 the name of Pragati Vidya Bhavan was shown in column No.13. In other Khatians also produced by the said respondent its name was shown as a permissive possessor. He also referred to the sale deed produced by the said respondent. He was of the opinion that the documents produced in Court supported the case of the opposite party which revealed that transfer of the land had taken place before 01.01.1969. He, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 187B of TLR & LR Act. [5] The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the District Collector, West Tripura, Agartala by a brief order dated 30.03.2012. Only reason recorded in such order was "Perused the certificate copy of SDM order submitted along with appeal petition. Heard learned Advocates from both sides.
I am satisfied with the order of SDM, Sadar.
Hence the appeal petition is rejected as not admitted"
Page - 5 of 8 [6] The petitioner thereupon approached the Revenue Secretary and challenged the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The Revenue Secretary by his detailed order dated 22.11.2014 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. He held that the Pragati Vidya Bhavan was the permissive possessor of the land since long. Its possession was reflected in the Khatian which was attested in the year 1968. Thus, the possession of the land was transferred prior to 01.01.1969 and, therefore, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner. He referred to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Hemalata Mallik and others versus The State of Tripura and others in Writ Appeal No.89 of 2007 dated 30.04.2014. Against these orders the present petition is filed.
[7] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the legal position with respect to the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under Section 187B of the TLR & LR Act is sufficiently clear by virtue of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Hemalata Mallik (supra) in which following questions were referred :
(i) Whether the 6th Amendment to the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short TLR & LR ACT, 1960) in any manner changes the cut off date of 01.01.1969?
(ii) Whether in terms of Section 187(3) of the TRL & LR ACT, 1960 the possession of the lands which were transferred by tribals to non-tribals prior to 01.01.1969 can be restored?
Page - 6 of 8 [8] These questions were answered with following conclusions :
"13. What the Sixth Amendment has done is to replace subsection (3) by Section 187B and make it more elaborate. The cut-off date however, still applies. The power of the revenue officer however, is still limited to transfers of land which took place after 1st January, 1969 and the revenue officer has no jurisdiction or authority in respect of transfers of land which took place prior to 01.01.1969. We, may, therefore, conclude by saying that though the transfers of land made in violation of Section 187 after the enactment of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 may be invalid, in respect of those transfers of land which took place prior to 01.01.1969 the revenue officer will have no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction of the non-tribal. He shall also have no jurisdiction to order restoration of possession to the tribal.
14. However, at the same time, we may clarify that merely because a defence is raised that a transfer had taken place prior to 01.01.1969 that will not oust the jurisdiction of the revenue officer. He will have the jurisdiction to decide whether any transfer of land actually took place prior to 01.01.1969, or not. He shall have to decide this question on the basis of evidence led before him.
15. The word „transfer‟ for the purpose of Section 187, 187B, 187C and 187D has been explained in explanation to sub Section (2) of Section 187D of the Act which includes parting with fully or partly of ownership or possession of any land or any interest therein in any other manner whatsoever, apart from transfer by means of sale, mortgage, lease, exchange and gift etc. So, transfer of land between tribal to non tribal, in whatever manner may be, even if illegal and in violation of restriction imposed under Section 187 of the Act, restoration cannot be ordered by revenue officers if such transfer held before 01.01.1969.
16. We may also clarify that the transfer prior to 10.01.1969 may not necessarily be by a written document or by a registered deed. There could obviously be no registered deed because such a deed would be invalid. There may have been illegal transfers but if the transferee establishes by Page - 7 of 8 leading cogent evidence that possession of the land was handed over to him prior to 01.01.1969 then obviously the revenue officer will have no jurisdiction. To sum up, the moot point is not whether the transfer is valid or invalid. Even if the transfer is invalid but possession has been transferred prior to 01.01.1969 the Revenue officer will have no jurisdiction in the matter. To give an example, if the non-tribal transferee of land from a tribal shows by leading evidence, that he has constructed a house on the land prior to 01.01.1969 the revenue officer will have no jurisdiction, whether the land be transferred validly or not.
17. In this view of the matter, we answer both the questions by holding that the 6th Amendment to the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 does not in any manner change the cutoff date, 01.01.1969. The second question is answered by holding that if transfer of the land has been made by a tribal to non-tribal in violation of the Act prior to 01.01.1969 then the same cannot be restored by the revenue officer acting under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960."
[9] Only question that survives is whether the authorities below are correct in coming to the conclusion that the said Pragati Vidya Bhavan is in possession of the suit land prior to 01.01.1969. This is a pure question of fact and concurrently decided against the petitioner by three revenue authorities. It is true that the order passed by the Collector is cryptic and bereft of reasons. I wish the Collector had cited some reasons in support of his conclusions. Unfortunately, he has not done so. However, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Secretary are detailed orders taking into account the rival contentions and documents produced on record. They have come to the conclusion that Khatians of the land in question prior to 01.01.1969 reflect the possession of the Pragati Page - 8 of 8 Vidya Bhavan. On the basis of such documents they have come to the conclusion that the said respondent has been in possession of the land prior to 01.01.1969. This pure conclusion of fact does not suffer from any perversity. Such concurrent finding of fact calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
[10] Petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ Dipesh.