AGARTALA, India, Feb. 9 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Jan. 8:
[1] This present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for calling for the records, lying with the official respondents, for rendering substantial and conscionable justice to the petitioner and for quashing the impugned Letters dated 16.06.2025 and 16.09.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2;
(ii) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, mandating/directing the Respondents to revoke/rescind the impugned Letters dated 16.06.2025 and 16.09.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, and direct the Respondent No. 2 to accord permission to the petitioner to construct multistoried building over her allotted land through a Development Agreement by any Developer of her choice;
(iii) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of Prayers (i) and (ii) above;"
[2] The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner got an allotment of land on 04.01.1986 and after the allotment, the petitioner also paid the premium. Thereafter, Khatian being no. 1407 was published in her name. On 04.04.2025, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 for handing over her land to any Developer for construction of a multistoried building over her plot of land. Vide letter dated 16.06.2025, the concerned respondent rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Once again, on 26.08.2025, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 2, but by a letter dated 16.09.2025, the concerned respondent again rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
[3] Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before this Court that the petitioner herein got allotment of a land on 04.01.1986 and thereafter, khatian No. 1407 was published in her name. He also submits that the petitioner has paid the premium as per one of the conditions of the allotment order. He further contends that the petitioner being an aged lady and her son staying out side of this country, so he prays before this Court to allow the petition.
[4] Heard and perused the evidence on record.
[5] It is seen from the record that after getting allotment of the said land, Khatian also published in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner herein also paid the due premium in regard to one of the conditions of allotment order dated 04.01.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation to the concerned respondent seeking permission to sell / hand over the allotted land to developer for development of multistoried building. But, the same was rejected vide letter dated 16.06.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred another application but to her utter surprise, the same was also rejected vide letter dated 16.09.2025, stating that her earlier application on the same ground was rejected.
[6] In view of the same, this Court feels that the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 and its consequential confirmation order dated 16.09.2025 both do not appear to be reasonable before this Court. Hence, the impugned orders stand set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent to re-examine the same in light of the legal position of law and also, if any guidelines are there from the Government and, thereafter, communicate the said decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order in accordance with law.
[7] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
