Devika Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.1 to 4. None appears for the remaining respondents. The respondents No.5 to 8 are served. So far the respondents No.9 and 10 are concerned, the service is deemed under Order 6, Rule 9(4) of the CPC as the registered notice did not return to the High Court. As such, there is no embargo in hearing this matter.

The grievance as canvassed in this writ petition falls within a short compass. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 09.10.2017, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gomati Tripura. In the said order it has been observed that in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Gomati District the legal heirs of Juddha Debbarma filed one suit for recovery of the possession vide case No.TS 23 of 2013. The Court had declared their right, title and interest over the suit land, which is the same land under reference in this writ petition. The said issued a decree of recovery of possession by evicting the petitioner and others as well.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the field inquiries have noted that the petitioner is in possession of the land under reference pertained in khatian No.1592 RS Plot No.1999/4082, 2032/4083 measuring 5.38 acre.

There is no dispute that the said land is recorded in the name of Juddha Debbarma as allottee and this is evident from khatian No.1592 of Mouja Fulkumari, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is also evident from the order dated 04.06.2016 that the petitioner even though is possession but his name has not been shown accordingly, because of that order, passed in DM Case No.07/2017 and SDM Case No.01 of 2016 which has been challenged in this writ petition. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is grossly arbitrary. One of the respondents namely Subhadra Tripura filed one writ petition previously being W.P.(C) No.100 of 2017. It was disposed of, by this court, by the order dated 01.06.2017 directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to complete the proceeding in respect of substitution of the legal heirs of Juddha Debbarma in the khatian within a period of six months from the day of receipt of that order. The official respondents by filing their reply have stated that the necessary direction has been passed to incorporate the names of legal heirs of the allottee, Juddha Debbarma since deceased and accordingly the due order has been passed for incorporation.

It appears from the order dated 09.10.2017, which has also been challenged in this writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused to enter the name of the petitioner for the decree passed in TS 23 of 2013. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has thereafter submitted that by the order of this court, the suit was remanded for retrial on making the petitioner a defendant of that suit. After the remand, as the plaintiffs did not take steps as required, the suit has been dismissed and as such, the earlier declaration and the decree of recovery have lost all force. Since the suit is dismissed, the necessary entry shall be made in the khatian on the basis of the field inquiry and the document relating to title.

Having observed thus, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents No.2 and 4 to make the necessary entry, if the suit has reached its finality. The petitioner shall therefore file one copy of the final order passed in the suit. The entire exercise be preferably completed within a period of four months from the day of receipt of this order, following the due process.

With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.