1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This Writ Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dt.15.06.2015 in WP(C) No.394/2010 of the learned Single Judge.

3. Previously this Writ Appeal had been decided on 30.06.2017 by a Division Bench of this Court which had dismissed it, but the appellants herein had challenged the same before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court vide order dt.11.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No.14501/2024 set aside the Order of the Division Bench, and remitted the matter back to this Court for adjudication on merits.

4. The case was heard by this Bench on 22.05.2026 and again today on 25.06.2026.

5. Learned counsel for both sides advanced their arguments.

Background Facts:

6. One Pulin Behari Gun was the intermediary/Talukdar of Kayemi Taluk No.114/7 of Mouja Samrurpur.

7. Before the enactment of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960 which came into force with effect from 14.04.1961 [“the Act”, for short], an agreement known as “Kabuliyat‟ was settled in 1956 between Pulin Behari Gun and Gouri Goala, the predecessor of the original first respondent in the appeal by name Laxmi Goala.

8. Under the said “Kabuliyat‟, Pulin Behari Gun settled seven kanis and ten gandas of land in favour of Gouri Goala in the said land after taking nazarana/rent from him.

9. After the Act came into force, by virtue of Section 135(d) of the Act, intermediary rights were abolished and were vested in the State Government.

10. On such abolition, a Khatian was finally published with No.1588 [Annexure-2] in 1969, and it recorded that this land was joint in the name of Gouri Goala and Mahadev Goala, who is the predecessor of the appellants herein in equal shares.

11. It is not in dispute that Gouri Goala and Mahadev Goala are two brothers, and they are the sons of one Bhanuram Goala.

12. When the Revisional survey operations took place in 1994 also, the position remained unchanged and in the Khatian No.162 dt.12.12.1994, the land was jointly shown in the name of Gouri Goala and Mahadev Goala [Annexure-3].

13. Thereafter Mahadev Goala died and name of his son Ram Narayan Goala was recorded in the Khatian No.162 in his place.

14. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the name of Ram Narayan Goala, Gouri Goala filed a Revision Petition under Section 95 of the Act before the District Collector, North Tripura for correction of the record of rights by deleting the name of Ram Narayan Goala from Khatian No.162.

15. The said Revision was registered as Revision Case No.09/1997.

16. The District Collector, North Tripura passed an Order on 28.04.1997 in Revision Case No.09/1997 rejecting the said Revision and holding that the land records even during the first settlement operation, had included the name of Mahadev Goala along with that of Gouri Goala, and that the same continued even after the Revisional Survey in 1994, and therefore there was no reason to interfere with the land records which had been in existence for several years. The said Order is at Annexure-4.

17. Dissatisfied with the said Order, Gouri Goala filed a Review Petition before the District Collector under Section 96 of the Act for reviewing the Order dt.28.04.1997 passed by the District Collector, North Tripura in Revision Case No.09/1997.

18. This review petition was registered as Review Case No.74/1997, and it was allowed on 17.04.1998 by the District Collector, North Tripura. He accepted the plea of Gouri Goala and deleted the name of Ram Narayan Goala, and thus modified Khatian No.162 to reflect only the name of Gouri Goala. This Order is at Annexure-5.

19. Ram Narayan Goala, the predecessor of the appellants, challenged this Order dt.17.04.1998 passed in Review Case No.74/1997 by filing a Revision Application before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department.

20. This Revision Application was registered as 38/REV/PS/98 (renamed as Misc. Case No.09 of 03 u/s 95 & 96 of the Act).

21. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department by an Order dt.11.02.2010 dismissed the Revision Application filed by Ram Narayan Goala, and upheld the Order dt.17.04.1998 of the District Collector, North Tripura in Review Case No.74/1997. This Order is at Annexure-6.

22. The appellants then filed the Writ Petition No.394/2010 before this Court challenging the said Order passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department.

The Judgment of the learned Single Judge:

23. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition vide Order dt.15.06.2015. This Order is at Annexure-1.

24. He extracted the Order passed by the Principal Secretary on 11.02.2010 in his judgment, and held that the Principal Secretary exercised his jurisdiction of Revision as vested under Section 95 of the Act on the application made by the appellants themselves; that his jurisdiction to decide the matter has not been challenged; and that he had decided the matter according to the law, and there was no error of law.

25. He also held that the finding given by the Principal Secretary was based on the issues raised before him by the counsel for the appellants.

26. According to him, there was no perversity in the said finding.

27. He also noticed that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Thus he dismissed the Writ Petition.

28. Challenging the same, this Writ Appeal is filed.

Submission of counsel for appellants:

29. Counsel for the appellants contended that that the Order passed on 28.04.1997 in Revision Case No.09/1997 by the District Collector, North Tripura was correctly passed in exercise of power under Section 95 of the Act. According to him, though a Review Petition was maintainable at the instance of Gouri Goala under Section 96 of the Act against the said Order, the scope of interference in the review jurisdiction was extremely limited and the Review petition – Review Case No.74/1997 was erroneously allowed on 17.04.1998 by the District Collector on a wrong premise.

30. He further contended that the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department erred in allowing the Revision Application filed by the appellants against the Order dt.17.04.1998 passed in Review Case No.74/1997 without testing the review order as per the limited parameters mentioned in Section 96.

Consideration by the Court:

31. It is important to note that in the Order dt.17.04.1998 passed in Review Case No.74/1997, the District Collector had observed that when the name of Ram Narayan Goala was included in the place of late Mahadev Goala, notice was not issued to the co-sharer Gouri Goala, and that it was in violation of principles of natural justice.

32. Admittedly, both the names of Gouri Goala and Mahadev Goala had been entered in the Khatian No.1588 dt.26.02.1969, and also in Khatian No.162 prepared after the Revisional Survey operations conducted on 12.12.1994.

33. Ram Narayan Goala wanted to be substituted in the place of late Mahadev Goala in the Khatian and filed an application after the latter died, as his legal heir for substitution, which was allowed in his favor in Case No.283/1994. He had no intention to remove the name of Gouri Goala at all. That was why the District Collector in the order dt.28.04.1997 in Revision Case No.9/1997 did not agree with the plea of Gaori Goala that Ram Narayan Goala had managed to get the land in question mutated in his favor behind his back.

34. When the intention of Ram Narayan Goala was only to get added in the Khatian along with Gouri Goala, and Gouri Goala would not be affected by such inclusion, having regard to the fact that the name of late Mahadev Goala was already included earlier as mentioned above, the District Collector in Review Case No.74/1997 could not have reviewed the said Order and deleted the name of Ram Narayan Goala.

35. In fact there were glaring factual errors in the order dt.17.04.1998 in Review Case No.74/1997.

36. The finding in this review order that during the last settlement operation, in the Khatian No.1580, the land was recorded only in the name of Gouri Gaola is factually incorrect because the correct Khatian No. is 1588 and the entry recorded therein shows names of both Gouri Goala and Mahadev Goala (Annexure-2) as possessors. This was on 26.02.1969. This was reiterated in the Revisional Survey in 1994 too as can be seen in Khatian No.162 on 12.12.1994 (Annexure 3).

37. The entries in Khatian No.1588 made after settlement operations on 26.02.1969, and in the Khatian No.162 made after the Revisional Survey on 12.12.1994 were thus ignored by him, which he could not have done.

38. He also seemed to have overlooked the fact that Gouri Gaola and Mahadev Goala were brothers and they were obviously jointly enjoying the property as permissive possessors and that was why the former had not at any time between 1969 and 1994 (for more than 25 years) objected to mention of name of Mahadev Goala in the Khatians. Only after the latter died, he seems to have entertained the thought of preventing the name of his brother‟s son being mentioned in the Record of rights.

39. For these reasons we hold that the District Collector in his order dt.17.04.1998 in Review Case No.74/1997 exceeded the scope of his review jurisdiction by ignoring the above material evidence and assuming wrong facts.

40. When the matter was challenged by the appellants before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department by filing a Revision Application challenging the Order passed in Review Case No.74/1997, the Principal Secretary also erred in upholding the Order passed by the District Collector on 17.04.1998 in Review Case No.74/1997 without noticing these glaring errors committed by the District Collector.

41. One of the observations made by the Principal Secretary was that there was a field inquiry report submitted by the then SDO, Kailashahar on 10.01.1997 which showed that Ram Narayan Goala was not in possession of the suit land. How such report could have been given without notice to Ram Narayan Goala, and how that report can be given any value having regard to the entry of the name of Mahadev Goala in Khatian No.1588 dt.26.02.1969 and also in Khatian No.162 issued on 12.12.1994, is not dealt with by the Principal Secretary. So we hold that the Principal Secretary erred in holding that there are valid grounds to review the order dt.28.04.1997.

42. The Principal Secretary cannot rely on the “Kabuliyat‟ produced at Revisional stage by Gouri Gaola ignoring the glaring fact that Gouri Gaola had accepted the recording of his brother‟s name (Mahadev Gaola) in the Khatian No.1588 dt.26.02.1969 and also in the Khatian No.162 dt. 12.12.1994 and for these 25 years, he had never questioned it when his brother was alive. This conduct of Gouri Gaola shows his acquiescence to possession of Mahadev Goala all this time and he is estopped by his conduct from taking a different stand now.

43. Therefore the Order of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department dismissing the Revision Application filed by the appellants by his Order dt.11.02.2010, cannot be sustained.

44. Unfortunately the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment also did not consider the matter in this perspective, and upheld the Order of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department passed on 11.02.2010.

45. In this view of the matter, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the judgment dt.15.06.2015 in WP(C) No.394/2010 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the said Writ Petition is allowed; the Order passed on 17.04.1998 in Review Case No.74/1997 by the District Collector, North Tripura as well as the Order dt.11.02.2010 of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department are both set aside, and the said Review Case and the Revision Application are both dismissed.

46. Consequently the official respondents are directed to enter the name of the appellants in the place of late Ram Narayan Goala along with the name of Gouri Goala (if it is not already there), and issue a Khatian accordingly.

47. This exercise shall be done within eight weeks.