A writ petition challenging pending revenue proceedings is premature and must be dismissed.

Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, read with the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, seeking correction of an allotment order relating to Khatian No. 1731.

The revenue authorities initiated an inquiry, directed the parties to appear with relevant documents, and obtained an inquiry report from the Tehsildar.

The petitioners alleged that the inquiry report was subsequently altered, that copies of the application and inquiry report were not properly supplied to them, and that the authorities issued undated orders and acted without jurisdiction.

The petitioners further contended that the mutation record had been cancelled instead of the allotment order and that Respondent No. 4 lacked locus standi to invoke Section 95.

During the pendency of the revenue proceeding before the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of Revenue Case No. 8 of 2025 and the orders passed therein.

1. Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the pending revenue proceeding and its interlocutory orders was maintainable when the matter was already pending before the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura.

2. Whether the petitioners should first raise their legal and factual objections, including the alleged lack of jurisdiction, non-supply of documents, and cancellation of the mutation record, before the competent revenue authority.

3. Whether the notice dated 30 June 2026 summoning the parties for the revenue proceeding required interference by the High Court while the underlying matter remained pending.

The proceeding arose under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, read with the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, governing the revenue authority’s power to consider correction of allotment-related records.

The Court applied the general principle that a writ court should ordinarily not intervene in a pending statutory proceeding when the aggrieved party can raise all legal and factual objections before the competent authority.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that premature litigation and simultaneous pursuit of parallel remedies are inappropriate where the statutory proceeding has not yet culminated in a final decision.

The Court also referred generally to the governing considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.

The High Court noted that the revenue proceeding before the District Magistrate and Collector was still sub judice and that a hearing had been fixed therein.

Consequently, the petitioners’ challenges concerning jurisdiction, locus standi, the alleged alteration or non-supply of the inquiry report, and the cancellation of the mutation record could be advanced before the competent revenue authority in the first instance.

The Court characterised the writ petition as premature and found that the petitioners were effectively pursuing parallel proceedings instead of allowing the pending statutory process to conclude.

Since no final determination in the revenue case had yet been made, the Court declined to adjudicate the disputed factual and legal issues at that stage.

The notice dated 30 June 2026, requiring the concerned persons to appear on 15 July 2026, was remanded in view of the pendency of the revenue proceeding.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.