Bithika Bose Sarkar v. State Of Tripura And ANR
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA RSANO.47OF2008
! "
# $! %&
'%% Versus ( %& % * #&# +&"% + %& , "
# - # + %& #*%& ...
" '% BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA / % '%% : 0 "
+# / '% : 0 " +# " : ,1 ,2(4 " 5& - : ,2(4 !
% : JUDGMENT&ORDER
%%& # (22 * * : 8 √ 5& # (2 ,226 + %% 8 (2 ,223 )
"
# *& 8 9 ! %&
, !
%% ) 2( 2;
,226 &) <& & $ (i) Whether the judgments of the courts below including the judgment of the learned appellate courtisorisnotingrossviolationofthestatutory provisions relating to creation of survey plot numberindecidingthelisinthesuit? (ii) Whether the judgments of the courts below are perversetothefindingsrenderedbytheGauhati High Court in its Judgment dated 22.09.1999 passedinMA(F)No.25of1983andMA(F)No.10 of1983? # <& %%#
&) <& &# & & ) & 8 4( ,229 & # ((3 %& +& # (;72 - # & ) %% ) + (4 ,229 + + * 8 4=+=0)==,222 ) +& * + %&
+ #
(7 (;;6% *# +&*8 34 (;;2& # ((9 -#
*# ) 5# % ## # & 9 (4 # ) % * 8 ;393 %% 5 8 ;#
+ %&&# # 5&
2( 2( (;17 + + *8 3731363;42
4,(;13& # ;4 -#
(7 (;;6% *# %%
+ & # ;4 -# + ) + *8 4=+=0)==,222 >& + % 5 ) 5 8 3 ;& 1 (, ) #% # && # ,9&+ %
# ) # #<& >8* % +,9 (;;9 ##
%% % % 8 ;393 &
#<&
>& 3 1, ##% % 8 ;393 #<&
& 9 (4#
# )
% 8 ;393 # % &
? (;13 "
# #
&&+ # ++ 5 / ) # 5& 2( 2( (;17 ) &8 (7;%
# * 8 ;393 +
+ ##
&
##
# ## #
2( 2( (;17 ) # & @
*& )& @
*&
# A# 5&
# / ) %# +
) * (2((2=(;63 BA)
# & ) #
& + &
%
%A#& )+ & $
"The Special Leave Petition is permitted to be withdrawn on the plaintiffs as the plaintiff?petitioner wanttofileasuitfortitletotheproperty.Whensucha suitisfiled,weareoftheviewthatallaspectscanbe properly examined. Mr. Sanjoy Parekh says that it could be necessary to give notice under Section 80 of theCodeofCivilProcedureasaconditionprecedentto theinstitutionofthesuit.Statusquoasexistingtoday under our Order shall continue for four months to enable the petitioner to give notice and institute the suitinProperCourt.StatusquoOrdershallmeanthat thepetitioner'spossessionwasshallnotbeinterfered withandpetitionershallnoteliminatethepropertyin anymanner." %%
%% C &)
@+ +
%A#& %% %
& # ((9
-# ## # ) + )#
% 5#
+ & # ;4 - # )
+ % & ) & %% ? %% # #& # 92 #<&
# %# #<& >8*
# #& % % 8 ;393
# 0 # 3;=(;13 9( (;6; % #<& % 8 ;393 # 9( (;6;) %% & @
*&
%%
) #
#<& )& 5 ? #) 0 # ,,1=(;;, #
#<&
) 5& ,9 (;;9 # #% *# #
) %% &
#<& # # ) 5& + 8 ,2( 2( (;17
5& 21 2( ,222 & @
*& # + ) %
#
#<&
#<&
)+ ) + 5& 2( 2( (;17
# %
# #<&
&
+ %
5& )% &# %&%# ? 0 / 8 (2 (;69 ) 5& ,, 2;
(;;;
+ BithikaBasu(Sarkar)vs.StateofTripura%
2000(1)GLT76BA) '? ) $ "So the finding of the DSLR has not the effect of extinguishing the appellant's title/interest in the landundertheacquisition."
# #
& ) & ) # 2( 2( (;17# ) 2( 2( (;17
;
0 "
#& %% %% && # + )+
)#
#& # (94 -#
#% 5& 5#
# + & * % 8 ;393# )
0
#&
# ) #& ) # &
!
& ))+ ) #& & $ "Inordertoascertainthisissueinappreciationof evidenceonrecordIfindthatthePW.?1deposed in his chief that the matters of right, title and interest of the plaintiff relating to the acquired partoftheC.S.plotNo.9434wasdecidedbythe L.A.Judgeinfavouroftheplaintiffvidejudgment, dated 31/03/1989 passed in Misc. (L.A.) 49 OF 1974 and the decision was also affirmed by the Hon'bleHighCourtinF.A.23/1993.ButIfindthe copyoftheJudgmentpassedbytheL.A.Judgeis not produced by the plaintiff in this case. The decisionoftheHon'bleHighCourtmadeinF.A.23 as stated by the PW.?1 is also not submitted in this case.
The copy of the Judgment reported In GLT 2000(1) on 76 submitted by the plaintiff in this case relates to M.A.(F) No. 10 of 1983 and M.A.(F)No.25of1983. On perusal of the Judgment dated 22/09/1999 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala in M.A.(F) 10/1983Ifindthattheappealwaspreferredu/S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 31/03/1983passedbytheL.A.Judgeinreference thepetitionmadeu/S.30oftheL.A.Actwhereas the P.W.?1 clearly stated in his examination?in? chief that the L.A. Judge decided the matter in favouroftheplaintiffvidejudgment/orderdated 31/03/1989 in Misc. (LA) 49/1974 and the High CourtaffirmedthedecisioninF.A.
23of1993.
On perusal of the judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in M.A.(F) 10/1983 I find no scope to ascertain whether the acquired part of the present C.S. plot No. 9434 was the subject?matteroftheappeal." (2 ? %% #' &
# 5& % 0 /(2=(;69
& #& ) ) ) % '%%
%& 5& (2 ,226%
"
# ! %& *& 8 9
+
) )+ $ "In the present case it is not disputed that entire plotNo.9434hadanareaof4.72acresandoutof which land measuring 1.57 acres was acquired for settinguptheONGCProjectintheyear1973under the provision of the L.A. Act and only 3.15 acres remained outside the acquisition which is the subject matter of the present suit which was recordedaskhaslandunderkhatianNo.2086inthe nameoftheGovt.Thecaseoftheplaintiff?appellant is that on the date of acquisition the entire land including the suit land stood in the name of her husband Kali Sankar Sarkar, since deceased, and the acquired land was also taken over him under the provision of L.A.
Act and that Director of Settlement&LandRecordsvidecommonjudgment dated1.1.76declaredtheunacquiredlandasGovt. khaslandundertheprovisionofSection135ofthe TLR&LRActandaccordinglyrecordofrightswas corrected. It is the further case of the plaintiff? appellant that part of the land under C.S. plot No. 9434wasacquiredandtheGovernmentdemanded compensationforthesaidland,beingKhaslandbut ultimately the Hon'ble High Court in M.A.F.10/83 declared the said land belonged to Kali Sankar Sarkar and directed to pay the compensation amount to the said Kali Sankar Sarkar by setting asidethejudgmentandawardoftheL.A.Collector. It is the argument of the Ld.
counsel for the appellant that as the Hon'ble High Court declared KaliSankarSarkarastheownerofpartofC.S.plot No.
amounts to disobedience of the Hon'ble High Court'sverdict.Ld.Counselalsodrewmyattention totheRule63(2)oftheTLR&LRActinregardto preparation of bozarat. This argument made on behalfoftheappellantthoughattractivebutcannot beacceptedasitisnottenableinlaw.Rule63(2)of the TLR & LR Act is not help the appellant in any way as the said Rule does not debar the Revenue Officer to open khatian or record of rights in the nameofdifferentpersoninrespectoflandcovered under the same plot. Sri Hari Sankar Sarkar has beenexaminedasPW.1butinhisdepositionhedid not state a single word about possession of the plaintiff?
appellant over the suit land and if she or herhusband werein possession their name surely would have been recorded as possessor in the recordofrightspreparedinthenameofGovt.Itis true Record of rights is not a document of title. Entries made thereunder in terms ofSection 35 of theIndianEvidenceActalthoughareadmissibleas arelevantpieceofevidenceandalthoughthesame may also convey a presumption of correctness, unless and until it is rebutted. The plaintiff? appellant also failed to prove that Revenue Authoritywronglyrecordedthesuitpropertyinthe name of the Govt. by adducing cogent evidence. I have also gone through the judgment passed in M.A.F.10/83 but I find no scope to ascertain whether the land under M.A.F.
10/83 was part of presentsuitC.S.plotNo.9434ornot."
# ) #& 0 " #&%% %
2( 2( (;17 #
& ) &# &
& @
*& 0 /8 (2=(;69 ?
%& @* # 26 (2 (;46BA) (2
%# & (; (7 1 %% " & 8 ,, & & 8 (7; 0&5
& 0 # ) ")
> %
5 + & 9 (, + & # (94 - # / # # ) % # %%
% ) % 8 ;393 (, @+ %#
#&
#& + % '%% ) %
% # +
# % #
% 8 ;393%
@#
#& ) (9 ? &
%%
% # ##
*
JUDGE