AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners as well as Mr. K De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. S Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 9.
According to Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, the land pertaining to khatian No. 937 was not within the settlement, conditions of which, have been reproduced in CM Application No. 268 of 2014. Annexures P6, P7 and P8 as referred in the order dated 19.06.2014 are different khatians, not khatian No. 937.
By the order dated 19.06.2014, which has been sought to be reviewed by the review petitioners, it has been observed that "the impugned order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure- P/20 to the writ petition) stands quashed. The khatians (Annexures P/6, P/7 and P/8 to the writ petition) are restored."
Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has submitted that for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2012 delivered in Revenue case No. 34/12 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 by the District Collector, it has been liable to be deduced that the observation to the extent that the transfer of land in favour of Hari Narayan Banik in 3 phases as mentioned by Shahshadhar Debbarma is also found illegal and therefore, the said land measuring 9 (nine) gandas of RS Khatian No. 937 comprised in RS Plot No. 941 also has to be rectified in favour of survivors of Shashadhar Debbarma has been reversed by implication. But that finding was not in dispute. The Revenue Court has ordered that the land measuring 9 gandas from the land as recorded in RS Khatian No. 937 RS Plot No. 941 and land measuring 6 ½ gandas of RS Khatian No. 90, RS Plot No. 943 has to be rectified in favour of the survivors of Maharaj Kumar Shashadhar Bikram Debbarma.
There is no dispute at the bar that the land comprised in RS Khatian No. 937 as referred in the order dated 24.11.2012 was not part of the said settlement and nobody has any grievance against the said part of the order as passed by the District Collector, West Tripura.
In view of this, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate, for ends of justice, that the order dated 19.06.2014 requires some clarification.
The said order dated 19.06.2014 as far as the said part of the order dated 24.11.2012 [as passed by the respondent No.1, Annexure-P/20 to the writ petition] should be quashed. But the said order shall remain unaffected so far the khatians marked Annexures P/6, P/7 and P/8 to the writ petition are concerned. No order be deemed to have passed in respect of Khatian No. 937. It is made abundantly clear that so far the order dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure P/20 to the writ petition) is concerned, it shall stand unaffected by the order dated 19.06.2014, as regards the land pertained to khatian No. 937.
In the considered view of this court, no further order is required to be made in this review petition. However, this order is made part of the order dated 19.06.2014 for avoiding any confusion.
In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties.