Sukhendra Chandra Banik vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged before this court to issue a writ of Mandamus on the respondents to transfer and handover 12 gandas of land (0.24 acre) as reflected in the letter of the respondent No.2, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

This is a strange case before this court. The petitioner was a salesman under the Tripura Wholesale Consumers' Co-operative Stores Ltd. (the respondent No.3) shortage of cash to the extent of Rs.12831.97 was located. Such shortage accrued from the account of gunny bags and other materials. By the letter No.2256/F.24(S)/67-68 dated 07.06.1968, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to deposit the shortage in the head office without delay.

According to the petitioner he was under serious pressure as unless that shortage was deposited, the matter would be reported to the police for taking appropriate action against him. Even though, the petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that he was not guilty of any maladjustment, he had transferred his landed property to the respondent No.3. The said landed property, measuring two and half kanis, situated at Badharghat. The said landed property pertaining to Mouja-Badharghat CS Plot Nos.8857/8862/8867/8868/8869 of Khatian No.2461 and 2457 was transferred by the petitioner. In the year 1985 almost after 17 years of transfer, the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3 for retransferring the land in his favour. The respondent No.3 by his letter No.F.17(1)/TSCCF/68-69/5915 dated 18.04.1985 had communicated the petitioner that if he was ready to pay an amount of Rs.36,972.05 (the short fall plus the interest) the same could be done.

The said amount, according to the respondent No.3, was calculated on 09.04.1985. The petitioner has admitted that he had not paid the said amount to the respondent No.3 to cause retransfer of the land that he had transferred in the name of the respondent No.3 for the purported adjustment. Then, the petitioner had communicated by the letter dated 06.09.1985 that he was agreeable to pay Rs.10,000/- which according to him was the shortfall and after receipt of the said amount the respondent No.3 should retransfer the land in his favour. The respondent No.3 by their communication dated 16.07.1990, Anneure-4, regretted the said proposal. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another application on 12.07.2006 to the respondent No.3. As it appears from the communication dated 14.08.2017, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioner had offered Rs.15,00,000/- as the consideration money for the said retransfer. On 12.07.2006 when the petitioner made an application for purchasing the land from the respondent No3, the respondent No.3 discussed this proposal in the meeting of the Board of Directors and decided that Rs.15,00,000/- be charged as the consideration money, if the petitioner intended to purchase the said land. But it was stipulated that within 30 days from the date of communication of the decision of the Board of Directors, the consideration money should be deposited. The decision of the Board of Directors was communicated by the letter dated 14.08.2006, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, but the petitioner did not deposit the consideration money within the postulated time. However, the petitioner had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- but did not deposit the remainder amount and as such, the said amount which was deposited by the petitioner was refunded.

It appears from the records that the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.3 was apprised of the settlement by Registrar, Co-operative societies. In the said settlement, which had been arrived at the initiative of the Chief Minister of the State it was agreed upon that for the petitioner, 12 gandas of land was allocated, out of that two and half kanis of land. But that was also subject to the condition that the petitioner had to repay the defaulted amount along with interest, not exceeding the principal amount, to the respondent No.3. There is no averment whether the said amount was deposited by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 or not. However, when the matter reached to the respondent No.3 through the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the Board of Directors' meeting was held and in that meeting, the Board of Directors had taken the decision in the following manner which has been recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on 25.05.2015 at Agartala:

"After threadbare discussion and after carefully examination of the issue the Board has resolved in the meeting that as this Organization has already been allotted land of this Organization at Badharghat on 13th BOD meeting held on 27-03-2010 on the letter of RCS vide No.F.3-6)(1)/Cons/Coop/85/vol-ii dated 01-06-2009 Govt. of Tripura measuring about 1 kani 10 gandas in favour of Director, School Education according to their request for setting-up a new Primary/Jr. Basic School and also allotted 2 gandas for Anganawadi School for children of the locality and 1 and half ganda for one homeless/landless widow lady as was staying long back and also 3 and half ganda for settled Kali Bari (Temple) and cultural activities of the local people and 1 and half ganda for local path and lastly 12 gandas land is remained vacant at present. So the Board has decided to utilize the said vacant plot of land of 12 gandas by constructing a go-down/cool storage for storing bulk quantity of stock/goods etc. of the TSCCF Limited with a view to extension of Train line from Agartala to Sabroom Sub. Div. CEO is requested to contact with the NCDC/NCCF/Agricultural Department for providing fund for construction purpose and also to communicate the decision to the RCS accordingly."

In the circumstances, the petitioner has been persuaded to approach this court. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed this reply and admitted the fact that at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State, one meeting was called when the Registrar of the Societies was present, and the resolution which has been relied by the petitioner, Annexure-R/1 to the said reply was adopted. The Registrar of the Societies [and of Co-operative Socieities] by his letter dated 15.01.2015, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.3, asked the respondent No.3 to implement the decision of the meeting, but it is apparent from the said decision of the Board of Directors that they had declined to implement the said order. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in response to the reply filed by the respondent No.3 on 22.03.2016 to contend that from paras 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondent No.3 had accepted the decision of the respondent No.2.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has contended that it is a case of unjust enrichment and this court should interfere and direct the respondent No.3 in particular to transfer at least 12 gandas of land to the petitioner. In response to such submission, Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the petitioner has voluntarily transferred two and half kanis of land in the year 1968 to adjust the shortage as stated earlier. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has become the absolute owner of the land and nobody can force the respondent No.3, unless the respondent No.3 agreed to sell some parts of the land on having the consideration for such sale. It is apparent in the face of records that the petitioner does not have any right even on the basis of the settlement arrived at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State inasmuch as the respondent No.3 was not part to such settlement and as such, the settlement does not find the respondent No.3. Moreover, the respondent No.2 does not have any authority to exercise in respect of how to manage the property of the society unless for any unusual circumstances, the respondent No.2 exercises his special power and becomes the custodian of the property. No such circumstances have been disclosed in the writ petition or in the reply. In ordinary case, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies/Socieites has power, limited to Section 92 of the Tripura Co-operative Societies Act, 1974.

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed being bereft of merit.

There shall be no order as to the costs.