Gurudas Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

This petition is filed challenging an order dated 01.03.2013 as at Annexure-15 by which the District Magistrate & Collector, Unakoti cancelled the allotment order of Government land bearing 0.265 acres, which was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta.

This litigation has a chequered history which can be recorded in brief as under:

By an order dated 28.02.1978, a parcel of Government land bearing 0.265 acres of Unakoti District (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit land') was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta. Saudamini Gupta had made a will on 28.07.1979 bequeathing the entire land to the petitioner, who the petitioner says is her brother's son. This will was also probated. Saudamini Gupta died on 25.07.1980. Upon operation of this will thus the petitioner claims to have become the owner of the land. Previously, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailashahar passed an order on 07.05.1984 cancelling the allotment on the ground that Saudamini had divested the land in question before 10 years without the permission of the Government, which was opposed to the condition on which the land was allotted. The petitioner filed Appeal against the said order and Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the Appeal in following terms:

"4. I have gone through the record of Case No.3/84 under Section 96 of TLR & LR Act 1960 of the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kailashar, I am in full agreement with the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, as mentioned above. There has been gross irregularities and illegality in this case, as the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer neither had the jurisdiction of taking up the review in the manner he did nor the justifications adduced by him for cancellation of the original order were valid and legal. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 7-5-84 of Sub- Divisional Officer, Kailashahar in case No.3/84. The question of successorship of Smt. Saudamini Gupta will naturally be decided by the competent court."

Later on, the Collector and D.M. instituted fresh proceedings for cancellation of the allotment which culminated into passing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2013. Before examining the legality of this order, it may be recorded that against this order the petitioner at one stage had preferred Appeal, which was allowed in part by an order dated 20.07.2013. However, the High Court by an order dated 19.02.2014 in W.P. (C) No.298 of 2013 held that the Appeal was not maintainable since the order passed by the Collector was in exercise of his revisional powers. The petitioner, thereafter, tried to file a Revision Petition and finding that even that was not competent filed the present petition.

One another element to be noted is that respondent No.3, Ram Thakur Seba Sadan, which is a registered society, stakes its claim on part of the suit land. The dispute between the petitioner and the said society were resolved by the Civil Court by a judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 in Title Suit No.17 of 1992. Suit of the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein, was decreed. There were further proceedings against this judgment, but suffice it to record that this judgment achieved finality when these proceedings were dismissed.

The proceedings for recalling the allotment of the Government land to the predecessor in title of the petitioner were reactivated by the Revenue authorities in the year 2013, which eventually culminated into passing of the impugned order. In this order, the District Collector, Unakoti referred to the allotment of the land to Saudamini Gupta, referred to the restriction of any transfer of such allotted land without the permission of the Government and also referred to Section 180(1) of TLR & LR Act which prohibits creation on fragment by way of sale, exchange, gift, bequest including by way of a Will, mortgage with possession. He was of the opinion that the allotment of the land was unalienable despite which the allottee had alienated the land by creating a Will, which was in breach of the condition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, I do not find the impugned order to be sustainable. Firstly, Section 180(1) of TLR & LR Act would have no application since even assuming that there was a transfer of the holding by way of a will, it was a transfer of the entire plot allotted and this cannot be seen as creation of a fragment by virtue of the will. Secondly, the question of breach of a condition by the allottee when she bequested this property to the petitioner under a Will, was already gone into by the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal in an Appeal filed by the petitioner, which was allowed on 21.02.1989. In this order, the Tribunal had recorded the contentions of the appellant i.e. the present petitioner at some length in which it was argued that inheritance of a property under a will is not a transfer. The land allotted can be inherited by way of a testamentary or non-testamentary succession. These contentions were accepted by the Tribunal in paragraph-4 of the judgment, which has already been reproduced earlier. Thus, inter-party, this question became final and binding. Thereafter, many years later, the District Magistrate could not have reopened the issue and taken a contrary decision. It may be noted that the Tribunal had left the question of dispute as to the Will to be decided by the competent Court. I am informed, the Will has been probated and so far none of the legal heirs of Saudamini Gupta or anyone else has questioned the legality of the will. Therefore, it was not opened for the Revenue authorities to cancel the allotment on the ground that the allottee had breached the condition of the allotment.

Before closing, I may also record that the Collector in the impugned order has relied on the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, which came into force from 11.12.1980. In the present case, the land was allotted in the year 1978.The will was made by the allottee in the year 1979 and the will came into operation upon death of the allottee, which took place on 25.07.1980. The situation was thus governed by the previous set of Rules called Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. A passing reference may also be made to the 1962 Rules where transfer of allotted land was prohibited without permission of the Government for a period of 10 years after allotment. This possession has substantially changed in the later Rules of 1980 where such transfer without the permission is not permissible even at a later point of time.

Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 01.03.2013 is set aside. Petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.