HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 490 of 2025 1. Shri Madhu Sudan Bhattacharjee. S/O Lt. Suresh Chandra Bhattacharjee. Vill- Malay Nagar, Near Panchayat office..P.O. Renters Colony.Agartala, District- West Tripura .......Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Tripura. Represented by Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department Having office at Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex, P.O.- Kunjaban Agartala, District-West Tripura. 2. District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District Having office at Akhaura Road, Old Secretariat Building, P.O.- Agartala, District-West Tripura. 3. Shri Nitai Ranjan Saha S/o Chentu Ranjan Saha, Purba Manu, Manpathar P.O- Santirbazaar.Sub-Division- Santirbazaar.District- South Tripura. ..........RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.D Majumder, Sr. Advocate. Mr. D. Kalai, Advocate. Mr. K. Debbarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate. BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD O R D E R 01.09.2025 [1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. [2] This present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in nature of certiorari shall not been issued calling for records for rendering substantial justice for quashing the order dated 24.01.2025 (No. 28/APPL/REV/SECY/2024(Annexure 15 of the petition supra) dropping the proceedings, under Section 93(1)(c) of the TLR&LR Act, 1960. Page 2 of 2 ii) Issue a Rule upon the respondents 1 and 2 to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari or like nature shall not be quash for quashing/or setting aside the order dated 06.06.2024 in Revenue Case No. 277/23 under Section 95 of the TLR&LR Act, 1960 (Annexure-8 supra). iii) Issue a Rule to Respondents 1 and 2 to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not direct them to consider the petitioner's Revenue Appeal on its merits according to law. iv) Issue Rule absolute in terms of prayer as above.” [3] Mr . T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D Kalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represents before this Court that notice was served upon respondent No.3 via Postal slip No. EE446065128IN and delivery of the same was also confirmed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Agartala. However, upon oral submission of the said respondent no.3 regarding non-receipt of the plaint copy, concluded the proceeding for non-supply of the plaint. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel further contends that they have no objection to serve a copy of the same again to the respondent No.3. [4] Accordingly, both parties are directed to exchange their pleadings in presence of the Revenue Secretary and the said authority shall give a reasoned opportunity to both parties and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Further, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the concerned appellate authority. [5] In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned. [6] 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. DR. T.AMARNATH GOUD,J Paritosh SABYASAC HI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH Date: 2025.09.06 15:55:41 +05'30'