Writ petition dismissed as premature while proceedings remained pending before the competent revenue authority.

Sudhir Chandra Roy purchased the subject land through Sale Deed No. I-6123. After his death, his wife, Malina Roy @ Indu Roy, sold the land to the predecessors of Petitioner Nos. 1–4 through Sale Deed No. I-8729. Petitioner Nos. 1–4 subsequently sold 0.730 acres to Petitioner No. 5 through Sale Deed No. 2023/SDR/I/30833. On Petitioner No. 5’s application, the revenue authority sanctioned mutation by opening Khatian No. 5648.

Private respondents, particularly Respondent No. 10, applied for correction of the Record of Rights and cancellation of the mutation. The authority allegedly passed an order dated 6 January 2026 under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, cancelling Khatian Nos. 5558 and 5648 and reverting them to the original Khatian No. 915/1-2, without notice to the petitioners, an opportunity to file objections, or supply of the relevant application and inquiry report.

The petitioners also challenged Notice No. F/DM/W/LA/SDR/WBP/11/2023/3165 dated 6 July 2026, issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, requiring the concerned persons to appear on 14 July 2026. The State submitted that appropriate orders might be passed.

Whether the order dated 6 January 2026, passed under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act cancelling the petitioners’ mutation entries, was liable to be quashed for want of notice and observance of natural justice.

Whether the writ petition challenging the pending proceedings and the notice dated 6 July 2026 was maintainable, or was premature while proceedings remained pending before the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura.

The Court considered Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, which empowers the competent revenue authority to review or correct revenue records in accordance with law.

The exercise of such statutory power remains subject to procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice, including notice and an opportunity of hearing to affected parties.

The Court further applied the principle that a writ petition is ordinarily premature when statutory or administrative proceedings concerning the same subject matter remain pending before the competent authority.

The Court also invoked the broad considerations of “justice, equity and good conscience.”

Although the petitioners alleged that the mutation entries had been cancelled without notice and that the authority lacked jurisdiction to interfere with entries supported by registered sale deeds, the Court focused on the fact that proceedings concerning the subject matter were still pending before the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, with hearing fixed on 14 July 2026.

The Court held that the petitioners could not pursue the writ proceedings while simultaneously participating in or awaiting determination of the proceedings before the competent authority; doing so amounted to “sailing on two boats.”

Since the administrative process had not concluded, the writ petition was treated as premature, and the petitioners were directed to raise all their factual and legal objections before that authority.

The notice dated 6 July 2026 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, summoning the parties for appearance on 14 July 2026, was remanded for consideration in the pending proceedings. Any pending applications were also disposed of.