Lal Mani Bin @ Mani Lal Bin vs State Of Tripura And Others

T. Amarnath Goud, J

[1] Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned Sr. G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

[2] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased a land from one Ram Abatar Bin and one Matia Bin in the year 1976 vide deed No.1-8360 and the said scheduled land as per the said deed, bounded by in North- Janaki Bin & land of Dag No.2452, in South-Purchased land of Vendee, in East- Bhogobania Bin, in West- Road. It is also reflected in the said deed that in this bounded land under Daag No.2451, the total land of 10 ganda is tilla land. Thereafter, the vendors of the petitioner, both died, and their legal heirs in the year 2007, again registered the said land unauthorizedly in favour of a third party i.e. Balaram Saha, private respondent No.6 herein. The petitioner became surprised, since his name was not entered in the revenue records/khatians all through in spite of he approached the official respondents. Since nothing worked out, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this present petition seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Admit this Petition.

ii) Issue Notice upon the Respondents.

iii) Call for the records.

AND

After hearing be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DM & Collector, West Tripura to dispose of the petition filed by the Petitioner dated 31.10.2024 for cancellation of Mutation granted in favour of the Private Respondent No. 6 Shri Balaram Saha.

AND

Would further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the SDM, Sadar to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner dated 14.12.2025 vide Receipt No. 30311 for causing inquiry and grant Khaitan (Record of Right) in favour of the Petitioner which is pending since long…..”

[3] It is seen from the record that firstly the petitioner purchased the land in the year 1976 and there is no evidence placed on record to show that the petitioner has taken prudent steps for making his name mutated in the revenue records all through. Even, when for the second time the legal heirs of the vendors had alienated property in favour of a third party in the year, 2007, the petitioner still has not initiated any steps seeking for cancellation of the said sale-deed in favour of a third party. Without there being any cancellation of the said sale-deed, this Court feels that it is not possible for the revenue authorities to enter the names of the owner(s) in the respective columns in the revenue records/khatians. It is not known to this Court as to how the official respondents are dealing with the matter of mutation when the title itself is in dispute.

[4] In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on merits with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, this Court feels that the petitioner has affective alternative remedies before the concerned civil Court for redressal and cancellation of sale-deeds in dispute and thereafter, he may approach the concern revenue authority for appropriate action.

With the above observation, the present petition is hereby dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

However, petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as per law.