Suresh Goala vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents.

The instant writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with the Revenue Case No.691/2014 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960.

The brief facts of the case are that, by dint of a purchase deed No.1-10140 dated 11.12.1972, land measuring 0.28 acres under C.S. Plot No.6413 has been purchased by Sri Arun Uday Chakraborty from Sri Buddha Gowala and, accordingly, mutated the Khatian. But, later on it is found that land measuring 0.59 acres has been recorded in favour of Arun Uday Chakraborty. Out of this, 0.37 acres are not related to the land of Buddha Gowala but remaining land measuring 0.22 acres was purchased from Buddha Gowala.

The District Collector had ordered for inquiry in course of the proceeding of the said Revenue Case. After receipt of the inquiry report, the District Collector had passed the order dated 01.09.2015 in connection with Revenue case No.691/2014 under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act:-

The order dated 01.09.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Sri Suresh Goala, applicant is present. Sri Shyamal Chakraborty, Ops is present. Heard them.

Perused the enquiry report it reveals that OP's Arun Uday Chakrabroty purchased 0.28 acres land in C.S. plot No-6413 from Buddha Gowala S/O Sukhar Gowala by Reg. Deed No.1-10140 dated 11/12/1972. Thereafter the said quantum of land has been mutated in favour of Arun Uday Chakraborty in C.S. Plot No.6413 vide MR No.861/1976. But total land measuring o.59 acres in R.S. Plot No-11715, 11716, 11727 & 9493 has been recorded in favour of Arun Uday Chakraborty. Out of this 0.37 acres of land is R.S. Plot No-11715, 11716, 11727 corresponding to C.S. Plot No-8490,9750p, 8491/9750p is not related to the land of Buddha Gowala.

Hence, the case is rejected."

Mr. A. Sen Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following prayers:-

" (i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01/09/2015 passed by the respondent No.2 in Rev. Case No.691/2014 (Annexure-4) rejecting the Revision Petition of the petitioner:

(ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to decide the legality and propriety of recording of 0.590 acre land in the name of Predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.3 to 12 in Khatian No.1177 of Mouja-Barjala(Annexure-i)."

After perusal of the records, I find that in this writ petition, the petitioner has also impleaded all the legal heirs of Lt. Arun Uday Chakraborty. The legal heirs of Lt. Arun Uday Chakraborty have no grievance about the recording of the land measuring 0.28 acres in their favour. The said legal heirs i.e. respondents No.3 to 12 also have no grievance against the order dated 01.09.2015 as aforestated.

Mr. A. Sen Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 has not properly exercised his revisional power given to him under Section 95 of TLR & LR Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent No.2 has not examined the legality and propriety of recording of 0.59 acres of land in revenue record/khatian No.1177 of Mouja-Barjala in favour of Lt. Arun Uday Chakraborty, the predecessor of the private-respondents.

Next, Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted that the "prayer and advice" of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar to the respondent No.2 in his report dated 01.07.2015 asking the private respondents to submit necessary documents for their „prayer of excess‟ recording of land measuring 0.37 acres during hearing before the Collector was not allowed by the respondent No.2.

From the contentions of the learned counsel and what also has been stated in this petition, it is not clear what the petitioner actually wanted from the Collector.

From the perusal of the order dated 01.09.2015, it is clear that the Collector has arrived at a finding that Lt. Arun Uday Chakraborty only purchased 0.28 acres of land and the rest of the land is related to the land of Buddha Gowala. Now, it is the burden upon the petitioner or Buddha Gowala to establish that whether the remaining excess land belongs to them or not.

This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot pass any such order based on such facts which are ambiguous in nature. If the petitioner- Sri Suresh Goala is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.09.2015, he may take recourse of law to adjudicate his claim. In the instant case, it is clear that the Collector has observed that the remaining land is not related to Buddha Gowala. Now it remains with Sri Suresh Goala i.e., the petitioner herein to raise his claim, if any, in accordance with law by way of appropriate proceeding.

The instant writ petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.