Bijoy Kishore Taran vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner and the respondents No.4, 5 & 6 are the full-blooded brothers. The dispute cropped up between them regarding the quantum of land they are sharing with each other. The suit land belongs to khatian No.1610 and R.S. plot No.612. Out of the dispute between the brothers, the present petitioner, Sri Bijoy Kishore Taran had instituted a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for perpetual injunction against his brothers, namely, Sudhangshu Kishore Taran and Pradip Kishore Taran. It is the case of the petitioner that the brothers of the petitioner had contested the suit by filing written statement and in that written statement, they have admitted that the suit land was gifted in favour of the petitioner by way of executing deed of gift by late Lalit Mohan Taran, the original owner of the suit land.

The learned Civil Court after recording evidence had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner being the plaintiff.

The other brothers who were the defendants in the suit bearing No. T.S. 05 of 2004 had preferred an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Gomati Judicial District. The learned District Judge had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge declaring right, title and interest and granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, restraining the defendant-brothers from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land. A second appeal also was filed before the High Court and that was disposed of being not pressed by the private-respondents herein, who were the original defendants of the title suit No.T.S.05 of 2004.

Being failed in the attempt to challenge the decree, the private-respondents in the instant writ petition had approached the revenue authority for correction of record of right under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act relating to the land which covered the subject in dispute in the Title Suit No.05 of 2004.

Having regard to the factual aspects of the case, the solitary question in law to be decided in this writ petition is that whether a Revenue Court can interfere with the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court.

The original owner i.e., the father of the petitioner and respondents No.4, 5 & 6 had gifted the suit land in favour of the petitioner, Sri Bijoy Kishore Taran. After being gifted the suit property, fresh khatian i.e., the record of right was created in favour of the petitioner. None of the defendants i.e., the respondents No.4, 5 & 6 had raised any objection against such recording of the suit land in favour of the petitioner. The dispute was cropped up in regard to shares between the brothers, who are the petitioner and respondents No.4, 5 & 6 in this writ petition. The petitioner herein had instituted a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and perpetual injunction against the respondents No.4, 5 & 6 and that was decreed in favour of the petitioner and also affirmed by the higher Courts. In that suit, all aspects, including the total quantum of land and the measurement also were settled. Had the respondents No.4, 5 & 6 any dispute in regard to the quantum of land or the measurement therein, that would have been raised in the civil suit itself.

The learned Civil Judge after considering all facts and recording the evidence had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner who was the plaintiff in T.S. No.05 of 2004, further affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the dispute which was once settled by a Civil Court cannot be re-opened in any revenue proceeding and the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decree passed by the Civil Court. Moreover, the Record of Right (ROR) i.e. khatian was prepared by the Revenue Authority, the State-respondents herein after following due procedure of law according to the relevant provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1961. There are different stages which are to be strictly observed by the Revenue Authority. In the casein had, the suit property was recorded in the name of the petitioner by the Revenue Authority long back. Before the ROR was finally published there was draft publication. Neither the State authorities nor the Private-respondents who are the brothers of the writ petitioner had filed any objection against such draft publication and ultimately ROR was created in favour of the writ petitioner.

Accordingly, in my considered view, the order dated 08.03.2015 passed by the Revenue Court is without jurisdiction and not tenable in law. Having held so, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 08.03.2015 passed by the Revenue Authority in Revenue Proceeding No.78/2012 is hereby set aside and quashed.

With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed.