GURUDAS CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi,J. -
(1.) This petition is filed challenging an order dated 01.03.2013 as at Annexure-15 by which the District Magistrate & Collector, Unakoti cancelled the allotment order of Government land bearing 0.265 acres, which was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta.
(2.) This litigation has a chequered history which can be recorded in brief as under:
By an order dated 28.02.1978, a parcel of Government land bearing 0.265 acres of Unakoti District (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit land') was allotted to one Smt. Saudamini Gupta. Saudamini Gupta had made a will on 28.07.1979 bequeathing the entire land to the petitioner, who the petitioner says is her brother's son. This will was also probated. Saudamini Gupta died on 25.07.1980. Upon operation of this will thus the petitioner claims to have become the owner of the land. Previously, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailashahar passed an order on 07.05.1984 cancelling the allotment on the ground that Saudamini had divested the land in question before 10 years without the permission of the Government, which was opposed to the condition on which the land was allotted. The petitioner filed Appeal against the said order and Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the Appeal in following terms:
'4. I have gone through the record of Case No.3/84 under Section 96 of TLR and LR Act 1960 of the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kailashar, I am in full agreement with the submissions of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, as mentioned above. There has been gross irregularities and illegality in this case, as the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer neither had the jurisdiction of taking up the review in the manner he did nor the justifications adduced by him for cancellation of the original order were valid and legal. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 7-5-84 of Sub- Divisional Officer, Kailashahar in case No.3/84. The question of successorship of Smt. Saudamini Gupta will naturally be decided by the competent court.'
(3.) Later on, the Collector and D.M. instituted fresh proceedings for cancellation of the allotment which culminated into passing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2013. Before examining the legality of this order, it may be recorded that against this order the petitioner at one stage had preferred Appeal, which was allowed in part by an order dated 20.07.2013. However, the High Court by an order dated 19.02.2014 in W.P. (C) No.298 of 2013 held that the Appeal was not maintainable since the order passed by the Collector was in exercise of his revisional powers. The petitioner, thereafter, tried to file a Revision Petition and finding that even that was not competent filed the present petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.