Heard learned counsel, Mr. C. S. Sinha for the petitioner and learned G.A., Mr. T. Datta Majumder for the State-respondents. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Order dated 24.08.2013, passed by the Secretary, Revenue, in case No. 14/Revision/Rev/Secy/2011, under Section 95 of the T.L.R. and L.R. Act,1960. The impugned order passed by the Secretary (Revenue) reads as follows:- "Ld. Advocate Tapan Kumar Chowdhury and Samar Sen Choudhury appeared for an on behalf of the petitioner. Ld. Advocate R.R. Datta is present on behalf of the 2nd party. Heard both the parties. On hearing it revealed that land pertaining to R.S. Plot No.1624 and 1632 have also been incorporated in the finally published khatian No.1416. The Respondents has got no objection regarding exclusion of the aforesaid plots in the khatian as the petitioner has got the land from his parents. It is also revealed that the matter is under sub-judice. I also do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the Ld. Collector. Hence, the case is dismissed." With the consent of learned counsel of both sides, the matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner and the respondent No.6 are the cousin brothers. The respondent Uttam Kumar Laskar initiated a proceeding vide Case No. 434/08 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) under Section 95 of the T.L.R. and L.R. Act before the Settlement Officer praying for correction of certain record of rights alleging that the said record of rights was not prepared according to the documents of title. The Collector by Order dated 26.09.2011 directed the correction of record of rights of Khatian No.1416 of Agartala Sheet No.12 and having felt aggrieved, the petitioner herein, namely Sankar Laskar filed the impugned revision case before the Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Tripura and the Secretary (Revenue) with the aforesaid order disposed the revision case holding that the matter is sub-judice and that he found no reasonable ground to interfere with the order passed by the Collector. It is contended by learned counsel, Mr. Sinha that the Revenue Secretary was never restrained by the Civil Court in dealing with the matter regarding correction of record of rights. He has also contended that the Collector passed the order when the partition suit was pending so, while the Collector could pass the order pending the partition suit filed by the respondent, there was no reason for the Revenue Secretary to reject the Revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that civil suit is pending. Learned G.A. fairly submitted that the dispute is regarding title of land between two private persons i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.6. The petitioner may approach appropriate Civil Court seeking relief if petitioner&&&&&s land is wrongly recorded in the Khatian. So, the writ petition is simply not maintainable. It appears a revisional application was filed by the respondent before the Settlement Officer (Collector) for correction of record of rights based on some documents of title. The revisional case was entertained by the Collector when a partition suit before a Civil Court was pending and the final order by the Collector was passed during pendency of the civil suit. The petitioner who was the respondent in the revenue case before the Collector, challenged the order of the Collector before the Revenue Secretary but the Revenue Secretary without assigning reason and without considering the case on merit, disposed the petition in a cryptic order which is not tenable in law. The Revenue Secretary was supposed to pass a reasoned order in support of his decision taking into consideration the facts and relevant law pointed out by the parties during hearing of the matter. Hence, the Order dated 24.08.2013, passed by the Revenue Secretary in Case No. 14/Revision/Rev/Secy/2011, under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act,1960 is set aside and quashed. The Revenue Secretary is directed to dispose the revisional application filed by the petitioner with a reasoned order after hearing both sides on merit. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Copy of the order may be given to learned counsel of the parties on payment of usual costs.
