- (1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. C. Nath, learned Govt. Advocate representing the official Respondents. Mr. K. K. Paul, learned Counsel appears for Respondent No. 4. Submissions are also heard from Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel with regard to the provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'the TLR & LR Act).
(2.) The Petitioners who are non-Tribal and are in occupation of land purchased from the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No. 4, Late Rangamani Reang challenge the order dated 14.6.1999 passed by the Collector of the North Tripura District (Annexure-6) in a review proceeding initiated under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act. By rejecting the review, the Collector has upheld the earlier order passed on 25.9.1997 by the SDO, North Tripura in the Restoration Case No. 87/96 whereby the land under Petitioner's possession was restored to the First Party (Tribal). The restoration of 6.11 Acres of land was ordered inter alia, on the ground that no dead of transfer of the land from the tribal land owner could be produced by the occupier and their occupation was found to be forcible. Restoration of 0.9 Acres of land was declined as the said lands were found to be homestead land where the writ Petitioner (s) had their residence. BACKGROUND FACTS
(3.) 1. On 5.9.1957, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by Late Rangamani Reang from whom the Petitioner (s) claimed to have purchased the land in the year 1955. Three others joined Rangamani as first party in the 145 proceeding claiming that each of the 3 had purchased 4 Kani land each from Rangamani. The first party's case was that out of total 1 Drone land under Jote No. 74, Rangamani Reang sold 4 Kani land to 3 members of the first party by Regd. Kabala dated 8.3.1956 and he retained for himself, the remaining 4 Kani land. It was also alleged that the members of the second party (writ Petitioners and their predecessors) were trying to disturb the lawful possession of the first party (tribal). 3.2. By the judgment dated 6.6.1961, the learned Court disposed of the Misc. Case No. 150/1957 by recording that the second party (writ Petitioners and their predecessors) were in possession of the land. 3.3. Thereafter Title Suit No. 75/1962 was filed by the legal heirs of Late Rangamani Reang and other tribal land owners, but said suit was not pursued to its logical end and was withdrawn on 20.9.1963 by the Plaintiffs with liberty to institute a fresh suit and the Court granted this liberty to the Plaintiffs by ordering cost against them. The order 10.10.1963 of the Court shows that the cost amount was deposited. 3.4 Subsequent thereto, the Respondent No. 4 Birendra Reang instituted a restoration proceeding under the provisions of TLR & LR Act against the writ Petitioners which was registered as Restoration Case No. 87/1996 in the Court of SDO, North Tripura. In the said proceeding the evidence on record was considered and it was found that the first party (Respondent No. 4) is the recorded owner of the land and the possession of the Opp. Party (writ Petitioners) was 'forcible'. It was further concluded that although the writ Petitioners are forcibly occupying the land since the year 1955, no deed of transfer from the Tribal Jotedar Late Rangamani Reang could be presented by the writ Petitioners. Accordingly after recording the satisfaction that there was no valid transfer of land from the tribal land owner to the writ Petitioners and having thereafter found the possession of writ Petitioners to be illegal and forcible, the Revenue Officer by the order dated 25.9.1997 restored the possession of 6.11 Acre of land under Dakshin Machmara to the Applicant/Respondent No. 4 Birendra Reang. However as earlier noted a part of the said land measuring 0.91 Acre was classified as homestead land and exemption from the restoration of the said land was granted, as the writ Petitioners did not have any other alternate land.;