Arjun Chandra Roy And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 in DM Case No.32/2012 whereby the land allotted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The petitioners herein further have sought for a direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2014.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

The predecessor of the present petitioners, Late Manoranjan Roy was the owner of land measuring 0.20 acres under khatian No.557, CS Plot No.363/1465, RS Plot No.1278 under Bagma Tehsil Kachari, Barbhaiya Mouja, viti(tilla) class of land, by dint of allotment in the year 1973. It is the case of the writ petitioners that after such allotment, their predecessor, namely late Manoranjan Roy had started possessing the said land and after his death the present petitioners being his legal heirs have been possessing the land in question continuously. However, suddenly the defendants, i.e. some representatives of Satsang Ashram had dispossessed the present petitioners forcefully on 26.06.2010. Against such forceful dispossession, the petitioners had instituted a civil suit for declaration of right, title and interest along with a prayer for recovery of possession of the suit land.

The defendants, Satsang Ashram after receipt of summons contested the suit by filing written statement. In course of trial, both the parties had adduced their respective evidence and also introduced some material documents in respect of their respective claims. Learned trial Court[Civil Judge(Senior Division), South Tripura, Udaipur] after hearing the arguments as advanced by the parties decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013 in connection with case No. Title Suit No.02 of 2013.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013, the defendants-Satsang Ashram had preferred an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, which was registered as Title Appeal No.31 of 2013. After hearing the appeal on merits, the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 18.05.2015 in Title Appeal No.31 of 2013 had affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udaipur as aforestated.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.2(Sub-Divisional Magistrate) in DM Case No.32 of 2012, whereby the land allotted in favour of the petitioners was cancelled.

The solitary question to be decided in this writ petition is that, whether declaration of title passed by a competent Civil Court, will prevail over the order of the Revenue Court?

I have perused the records. It appears that the defendants i.e. the Satsang Ashram during pendency of the civil suit had approached the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur Sub-Division, Gomati District, praying for cancellation of the allotment order passed in favour of the predecessor of the present writ petitioners. On receipt of the said complaint, the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur issued summons upon the present writ petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petitioners contested the said revenue proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. After hearing the parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur had passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2014 in connection with case No.DM 32 of 2012, wherein the allotment order issued in favour of the predecessor of the writ petitioners was cancelled.

Against that cancellation order dated 11.08.2014, the present writ petitioners had again instituted a suit for declaration with consequential reliefs and perpetual injunction, etc. before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur and it was registered as Title Suit No.31 of 2013 against the State of Tripura and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura.

The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 had decreed the suit in favour of the writ petitioner-plaintiffs. The relevant portion of the judgment may be reproduced here-in-below:

"So, considering the above facts and circumstance I am of the view that the plaintiffs able to establish their right, title and interest over the suit land and at the same time I am of the view that the defendants have no jurisdiction to draw up any proceeding for cancellation of Allotment Order which was passed by them in the year 1973 under the Allotment Rules, 1962 invoking the provision of the Allotment Rules, 1980 and thereby the defendant No.2 is needed to be restrained from continuing with any further with the proceedings in question initiated for cancellation of Allotment Order against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land."

Accordingly, learned Court has passed the following order:

"In find I ordered as follows:

(a). That the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land.

(b). The defendants have no right or jurisdiction for cancellation of Allotment Order made in the year 1973 in favour of Manoranjan Roy and as such, they are perpetually injuncted to initiate any proceeding for cancellation of Allotment Order against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land.

(c). Cost of the suit are to be born by the parties of their own."

Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that against the said judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014, the State of Tripura or any of the respondents did not prefer any appeal. So, the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 in Title Suit No.31 of 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati, Udaipur has attained finality.

A Division Bench of this Court in WA No.4 of 2015, titled as Dhaneswar Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Anr., while dealing with a similar question has held thus:

"5. At the outset, we may notice that the land was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner in the year 1988. Assuming that there was any error in the allotment, such allotment should have been challenged within a reasonable time. Allotments cannot be set aside after expiry of reasonable period. What is a reasonable period may depend on the facts of a particular case but normally the reasonable period will not exceed 3 years at the most. It is only in cases where fraud is proved that the period of limitation will start from the date of discovery of the fraud. Otherwise within a reasonable period, proceedings to cancel allotment must start. A person who is allotted land develops the land by dint of his hand work. He invests money and time on the land. After he has developed the land the allotment cannot be set aside after two decades on the ground that the objector had a better claim to the land.

The finding of possession recorded by the Civil Court, in our view, could not be set to be naught by the Revenue Court. To this effect, the learned single Judge is absolutely correct. The civil Court after hearing both the parties has decided the matter. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and after recording evidence, the Civil Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was in possession of the suit land. This decree of the Civil Court has to be challenged by filing an appeal before the District Judge and cannot be nullified by a revenue officer."

In the instant case also the right, title and interest and recovery of possession have been declared in favour of the petitioners by Civil Courts in T.S. No.02 of 2013, further affirmed by learned District Judge in T.A. No.31 of 2013. The petitioners as plaintiffs again challenged the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Revenue Court in DM Case No.32/2012 by way of filing of civil suit against the State of Tripura for cancelling the allotment order issued in favour of late Manoranjan Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Civil Court after recording evidence of both the parties and threadbare enquiry has confirmed the possession of petitioners over the suit land. Be that as it may, in my considered view and following the ratio settled in Dhaneswar Debbarma(supra), the Revenue Court cannot overrule or nullify the judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court. The decree passed by the Civil Court in regard to title and possession is binding upon the Revenue Court. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. (emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur in DM Case No.32/2012 cancelling the allotment of land allotted in favour of Late Manoranjan Roy, the predecessor of the writ petitioners is hereby set aside and quashed. The State respondents are directed to correct the Record of Rights(RoR) in favour of the petitioners and restore the Record of Rights(RoR) as it was before cancellation and do the needful to record the names of the present petitioners who indisputably are the legal heirs of Late Manoranjan Roy. In other words, the State-respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the order/decree passed by the Civil Court as aforestated.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed, and accordingly, the same stands disposed.