Smt. Mohanbala Tripura v. The State of Tripura and 4 Ors
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
matter, this appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 0606. Now the petitioner has submitted that further proceeding has been initiated in the court of SDM, Logtharai valley, Dhalai serving notice to the petitioner on 26.08.2021 to appear on 16.09.2021 with reference to Revenue Case No.21/REV/2016 and the petitioner had attended accordingly with her…
- Para 1010. Without expressing any opinion on merits, this court expresses its concern to the petitioner and also expresses its faith to the District Collector that he would conduct the proceedings in all fairness and adjudicate the matter by considering the revenue records and pass the…
Judgment
Mr. P. K. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. A. Debbarma, Adv. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD 01/07/2022 Order Heard Mr. P. K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for directing the respondents for releasing the relief norms under the SC & ST (POA) Rules, 1995. The petitioner has also prayed for incorporating the name of the petitioner in digitalized khatin bearing No.31 under Joychandra para, mouja-Longtharai valley Sub-Division, Dhalai Tripura recorded in reserve forest khatian bearing No.3/40 of Joychandra para mouja.
Previously, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.1320 of 2017 challenging the order dated
28.02.2017 passed by the District Collector, Dhalai Tripura in Case No.21/REV/2016. Be it mention here that to remove the inconsequential procedural defect, that writ petition was converted to one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the order as challenged has been passed in a statutory proceeding under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960.
This court while dismissing the said writ petition by the judgment and order dated 05.10.2020 observed that the District Collector shall consider the interest over the land that has emerged for the long possession of the forest dwellers like the petitioner. This court further directed that the District Collector, Dhalai Tripura shall issue proper notice to the petitioner and having afforded him reasonable opportunity of being heard shall pass the appropriate order.
Operative part
The respondents by filing a writ appeal being W.A. No.137 of 2021 against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has asserted that the District Collect, Dhalai by the order dated 28.02.2017 has corrected the land records and effectively cancelled allotment of land in favour of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the land so allotted was by way of an error an being a forest land could not have been allotted to a private individual, the petitioner. The writ appeal has been disposed of on 19.07.2021 with the following observation:
We see absolutely no reason to interfere with this order. When the allotment had stood in the name of the original petitioner for over 40 years, even if such allotment was on the basis of some factual error, could not have been cancelled without hearing her. In any case, learned counsel for the original petitioner stated that the Government has already implemented the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and issued a notice and passed fresh order. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed.
Now the petitioner has submitted that further proceeding has been initiated in the court of SDM, Logtharai valley, Dhalai serving notice to the petitioner on 26.08.2021 to appear on 16.09.2021 with reference to Revenue Case No.21/REV/2016 and the petitioner had attended accordingly with her learned counsel. The petitioner has vehemently submitted that though she filed various representations before the competent authority to incorporate her name in the digitalized khatian but till date her name has not been incorporated there. Hence, this writ petition.
It appears that the petitioner has right, title and interest upon the subject land and the name of the petitioner was removed without following the due process of law in the revenue records. The matter is now pending before the Collector on various issues.
Learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted before this court that since the matter is subjudice before the District Collector and the petitioner is not cooperating in the matter, they are not in a position to conclude the proceeding and passed the final order.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denied the contention of the respondents and submits that the petitioner is very much cooperating in the proceedings and he is agitating on the issue with regard to deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue register and the said deletion was done at the behest of the Collector and further submits that the Collector is acting in contravention to law.
Without expressing any opinion on merits, this court expresses its concern to the petitioner and also expresses its faith to the District Collector that he would conduct the proceedings in all fairness and adjudicate the matter by considering the revenue records and pass the speaking order taking into consideration all the contentions made by the petitioner and also the relevant documents that have filed by the petitioner as well revenue records. The said decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the day of receipt of the copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry. In the event if the petitioner is not cooperating in the inquiry and does not attending, the Collector shall make a note of the said non-cooperation as being absent by the petitioner in the said proceeding. With this above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Moumita
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: matter, this appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.