HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_ WP(C) No.468 of 2021 v. Issue Rule calling upon
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: i. Admit the instant writ petition. ii. Call for the records relevant from the custody of the respondents. iii. Issue Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ/writs in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing the respondents for setting aside/quashing the order dated 22.01.2021 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati District, Tripura, respondent No.1 in Revenue case No. 36 of 2020 under Section 95 of the TLR&LR Act, 1960. iv. Issue Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ/writs in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing/mandating the respondent No.1 to allow mutation of the pond and bank of pond, in question, in favour of the petitioners and the respondents No.2 to 7. v.
Issue Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ/writs in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing the respondent No.1 to produce all the records in connection with Revenue case No. 36 of 2020 under Section 95 of the TLR&LR Act, 1960. AND/OR vi. After hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute, issuing direction to the respondents. The case of the petitioners is that predecessor of the petitioners and the predecessor of the private respondents are the owners of the pond and bank of pond class of land, in question, by way of registered exchange deed executed by the previous owners. The said exchange deeds were executed by the attorney of the original owners. The exchange deeds were registered before the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur, Tripura. On the basis of the exchange deeds, many plots in the name of Srish Chandra Bhowmik, predecessor of the petitioners No.1 and 2 was recorded in his name in the Record of Right but, the plots No.2238, 2239 of Mouza Palatana, Khatian No.790 was not recorded in his name.
Due to the said reason, the petitioners applied for correction of Record of Right incorporating their names in place of the names of the previous owners but, the respondent No.1 without applying his mind dropped the proceeding with a finding that there were insufficient deeds and documents for recording the names of the petitioners and the private respondents in place of the original owners. In view of above, it reveals that the impugned order dated
Operative part
22.01.2021 suffers from legal impediments and appreciation of facts. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remand back to the District Magistrate & Collector for fresh adjudication on the legal issues. Thus, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order in terms of the facts and legal position after hearing both the parties and this exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and also communicate the decision to the petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the above terms. A. Ghosh CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
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.