Bibhuti Debnath vs State Officer and Another

N.S. Singh, J.—Upon hearing Mr. B.B. Deb, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and also Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the State-Respondents, I am of the view that these 5 cases can be disposed of at the motion stage considering the existing fact and circumstances of the cases. Accordingly. 1 hereby propose to dispose of these 5 cases with the following common judgment and order:

Supporting the case of the Petitioners. Mr. B.B. Deb, learned senior Counsel, contended that that the impugned orders, namely, order dated 3.9.1998 passed in T.P.P. Case No. 139/98, T.P.P. Case No. 150/98, T.P.P. Case No. 142/98. T.P.P. Case No. 140/98 and T.P.P. Case No. 151/98 were passed by the Estate Officer (Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar) without juriadiction and the same is null and void in view of the fact that the land/premises in question belong to Central Government and as such, the State machinery has no power and jurisdiction to evict the Petitioners or direct the Petitioners to vacate the said premises by invoking the provisions of law laid down under the Tripura Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1983 as amended up to date.

Mr. B.B. Deb, learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to the related documents; namely, khatian marked as Annexure 2(a) to the writ petitions and submitted that the said document (Heatians) clearly show that the land in question belong to Central Government. I have perused the related documents

Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides and also on perusal of the available materials on record it has been revealed that the Petitioners did not approach the appellate authority as required u/s 11 of the Ad. Section 11(1) provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any putrid premises u/s 5 or Section 7 or Suction 9 to an Appellate Officer who shall be the District Magistrate and Collector of the district in which the public premises are situate

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couchcd in wide terms and the exercise thereof is riot subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the Jurisdiction is discretionary, it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed Innovations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other made prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the Petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without bring unduly onerous, provision an eually efficacious remedy Again the High Court does not generally even upon to determination of questions winch demaud celebrate examination of evidence to establish the right to caforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore (sic) Appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal (sic) and does not by assuming Jurisdiction under Article (sic) upon an alternative remedy provided by (sic) relief. Where It is open to the aggrieved (sic) Tribunal or even itself in another (sic) in the manner provided by a statute the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 326 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed and leave the party applying to it to seek resort to that machinery so set up. This principle of law (sic) place in a landmark judgment, of the Apex Court tendered in Thansingh Nathmal v. The Superintend of Taxes reported in AIR 1964 SEC 1419.

In the instant case also the Petitioners have an alternative remedy as required by Section 11 of the Act, Considering the nature of the case and also applying all these established principles of law, this Court does not like to entertain these petitions at this stage as the Petitioners have equally efficacious remedy as discussed above.

For the reasons, discussed and observations made above writ petitions (sic) writ petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly these are dismissed. Despite dismissal of there writ petitions (sic) constrained to make the following order and direction considering the nature of the cases.

The Petitioners are at liberty to approach the appellate authority as required u/s 11 of the Act. If so advised within 10 days from today. It is made clear that the appellate authority shall entertain the appeals if the Petitioners prefer the same and the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from the date of filing of the Memos of appeals in accordance with law. It is also further made clear that pending final disposal of the appeals (if so preferred), the possession of the writ Petitioners over land in question shall not be disturbed by the competent authority.

The Petitioners and the Respondents may obtain certified copy of this judgment and order by tomorrow on payment of necessary fees.