STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi, J. -
(1.) These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge and are filed by State of Tripura and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) respectively.
(2.) The original writ petition WP(C)No.391/2010 was filed by the IOCL to challenge an order dated 20th February, 2010 passed by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department concerning a land situated at Kumarghat which we are informed admeasures about 2.01 acres. The said authority had declared the Government as the owner of the land. IOCL claimed that it was a non-agricultural tenant of an intermediary and, therefore, would automatically become the tenant of the Government. Learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by a judgment on 29th April, 2015 and set aside the order passed by the Principal Secretary dated 22nd October 2010, however, in the process, made some observations upon which the State Government as well as IOCL felt aggrieved and therefore, two separate writ appeals have been filed.
(3.) These appeals are pending since a long time. This was primarily on the ground that after the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition, another judgment was delivered by the High Court in second appeals RSA Nos.59/2012 and 69/2012 which were between the Government of Tripura, the erstwhile owners of the land - the intermediary, and the IOCL. This judgment was delivered on 23rd September, 2016. Under this judgment, the suit of the original plaintiffs came to be dismissed and it was declared that the land in question had vested in the Government w.e.f. 15th April, 1963 and the land would be treated as a Khas land. Thus, there is a clear conflict of judicial opinions. One expressed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition which is under challenge in the present appeals and another by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction in second appellate jurisdiction. Faced with such realities, the IOCL has initiated steps for recalling the judgment in second appeal by filing a review petition. According to the IOCL, second appeal was disposed of without a proper service of notice to it. We are not required to go into the correctness of this averment since the review petition is pending and would be disposed of by the concerned Judge in accordance with law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.