Anjali Chakraborty And Others vs State Of Tripura And Others

[1] Petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Dhiresh Chakraborty who died on 20th September, 2002 leaving behind an immovable property in the nature of a land bearing Touji No.11/5, Khatian Nos.10711 & 10712, Plot No.3438/17584 & 3443/17586 (new numbers) situated in city of Agartala. The grievance of the petitioners is that on such land respondent No.7 who is the brother of deceased Dhiresh Chakraborty, has obtained permission fraudulently from AMC and other authorities for erection of a Telecom Tower of Reliance Company who is joined as respondent No.7. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos.7 & 8 to stop such illegal construction.

[2] The case of the AMC is that respondent No.7 had approached the authority with proper clearances from Pollution Control Board and other statutory bodies to grant permission for erection of a mobile tower on piece of land which he claimed to be the owner of. He had produced the Government records with respect to the land bearing Plot No.8996 (new) corresponding to old No.(3443). On the basis of such documents and upon being satisfied that there is no other impediment in granting the permission the AMC authorities had allowed erection of the mobile tower.

[3] Learned counsel Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta) drew my attention to an interim injunction order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), West Tripura in a civil suit filed by the petitioners against the respondent No.7 by which the said respondent has been directed not to change the nature and character of the suit land till disposal of the civil suit. She submitted that respondent No.7 may be the owner of Plot No.8996, however, the construction of mobile tower has taken place in the land belonged to the petitioners.

[4] These are disputed questions of facts. The AMC authorities surely cannot be faulted for granting permission for erection of mobile tower when the respondent No.7 had produced necessary documents to prove his ownership of the land. If either by mistake or deliberately the actual construction of the mobile tower has taken place on the land belonged to the petitioners, they must so establish before the civil court and only thereupon appropriate relief can be granted. In a writ petition it would not be possible to accept the stand of the petitioners that the construction of the mobile tower has taken place on the land belonging to them.

[5] Under the circumstances, I leave it to the petitioners to approach competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. The fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their remedies bona fide before this Court and in any case the factum of the AMC have been granted permission to respondent No.5 for erection of mobile tower on the basis of his application and ownership proof of the plot of land bearing No.8996 is made known to the petitioners only today, would be relevant considerations for the purpose of limitation for filing the suit if ever such a question arises.

[6] In the result, petition is disposed of with these observations. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.