Tripura HC Dismisses School's Writ for Khas Land Allotment, Holds Rule 11(b) Bars Town Land Grant Except for Homestead
The High Court of Tripura ruled that a CBSE-affiliated school in Bishalgarh had no enforceable right to compel allotment of 0.250 acres of Government khas land under Rule 11(b) of the 1980 Rules, rejecting a decade-long campaign for formal allotment.
The High Court of Tripura, in a judgment delivered on 15 May 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Ananda Marga School, Bishalgarh, and its parent society, Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, seeking allotment of 0.250 acres of Government khas land adjacent to the school campus. Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, sitting singly, held that the land in question falls within the Bishalgarh Municipal area and is therefore governed by Rule 11(b) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, which prohibits allotment of town land without prior State Government sanction and except for homestead purposes. Since the school sought the land for institutional expansion — not homestead — the court found the claim legally impermissible. The judgment also rejected the argument that Rule 14 of the same Rules, which deals with public utility allotments, could override the express bar in Rule 11(b).
The School's Claim and the Decade-Long Allotment Bid
Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961, has been running Ananda Marga School at Bishalgarh in Sepahijala District since 1984. The school is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and, according to the petitioners, serves a substantial student population in the locality.
The school's own land measures approximately 0.31 acres. Adjacent to it lies Government khas land comprising three revenue plots — R.S. Plot No. 6186 (0.09 acres), R.S. Plot No. 6185 (0.12 acres), and R.S. Plot No. 6183 (0.04 acres) — totalling 0.250 acres under Khatian No. 1/220, Mouja Bishalgarh, Tehsil Bishalgarh, Revenue Circle Bishalgarh, District Sepahijala. The petitioners claimed to have been in possession of this adjacent land since 1984, having filled and levelled it for use as part of the school campus.
In May 2016, the school submitted a formal application to the District Magistrate & Collector, Bishramganj, Sepahijala, for allotment of the khas land. The application was supported by signatures of guardians, teachers and members connected with the school. Following a physical enquiry, the Tehsildar, Bishalgarh, submitted a report on 28 October 2016 confirming the school's occupation of the plots and recommending allotment. The Sub-Divisional Level Land Allotment Site Selection Committee approved the proposal on 2 December 2016, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the allotment proposal to the District Magistrate by letter dated 8 December 2016. Proceedings under Section 14(1) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 were also forwarded at that stage, with the land valued at Rs. 7,50,000.
Despite the 2016 recommendation, no final allotment order was issued. The school management submitted multiple representations in 2023, 2024 and 2025 — specifically on 21 July 2023, 3 June 2024, 11 July 2024, 28 August 2024, and 5 November 2024 — to the Secretary of the Revenue Department, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate, each time expressing readiness to pay the assessed premium and urging completion of the allotment process.
Prior Court Direction and the 2025 Rejection
The petitioners had earlier approached the High Court in WP(C) No. 827 of 2024. By order dated 6 January 2025, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' case in accordance with law within two months. That order was forwarded to the respondents on 10 January 2025.
Following the court's direction, the matter was reconsidered at the sub-divisional level. On 7 March 2025, the Sub-Divisional Level Land Allotment Committee and the Site Selection Committee both approved allotment of the 0.250-acre parcel in favour of the school as an exceptional case. A Non-Encumbrance Certificate was jointly issued on the same date by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Bishalgarh, certifying that a portion of the school existed on Plot Nos. 6186 and 6185, and that Plot No. 6183 was free from encumbrances. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also initiated proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Act and recommended the proposal with premium, noting the applicability of Rule 11(b) of the 1980 Rules given the land's location within the municipal area.
The District Magistrate & Collector had earlier, by letter dated 5 February 2025, returned the original 2016 allotment proposal for review on three grounds: absence of an encumbrance-free certificate, the dissolution of the original approving committee (a fresh committee having been constituted in August 2023), and the need to recalculate the premium at current market value.
Notwithstanding the fresh approvals of March 2025, the District Magistrate & Collector, Sepahijala District, by the impugned communication dated 22 March 2025, rejected the allotment application. The stated reasons were: a land dispute had arisen in respect of the plots; proceedings under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had earlier been initiated; the land was not completely encumbrance-free; and under Rule 11(b) of the 1980 Rules, no town land could be allotted without prior State Government sanction and except for homestead purposes. The District Magistrate concluded that allotting disputed land to one of the contesting parties, and for a school rather than homestead, would not be proper.
A separate civil dispute had also arisen with a northern neighbour, Gouri Rani Saha, who allegedly attempted to disturb the school's possession. The school had filed Title Suit No. 06 of 2024 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Bishalgarh, and obtained an interim injunction on 5 June 2024. That suit was subsequently withdrawn on 23 April 2025 with liberty to file afresh, leaving no subsisting civil proceeding at the time of the writ hearing.
The Legal Contest Before the High Court
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, argued that the rejection order of 22 March 2025 reflected gross non-application of mind. He contended that the school had been in peaceful possession since 1984 and required the land for a clear public utility purpose — securing CBSE affiliation for Classes XI and XII. He submitted that once the newly constituted committees had formally approved the proposal as an exceptional case and issued a Non-Encumbrance Certificate, the District Magistrate had no legal justification to block the allotment by citing a withdrawn civil dispute. He further argued that the authorities were duty-bound under Section 14 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act to facilitate such public-utility expansion, and that Rule 11(b) itself permitted allotment with State Government sanction, which the petitioners were willing to obtain.
Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, opposed the petition. He argued that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners had been infringed, since the State, as the lawful owner of the khas land, had exercised due diligence at every stage. He contended that the petitioners' claim that additional land was necessary for CBSE affiliation was wholly unsupported by documentary evidence — CBSE had not been impleaded, and no communication from CBSE had been placed on record to show that additional land was a mandatory pre-condition for affiliation. He relied on Rule 11(b) of the 1980 Rules as a clear statutory bar, and argued that Rule 14, which governs public utility allotments, could not override that bar. He also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, (2009) 15 SCC 436, for the proposition that a writ of mandamus requires the petitioner to establish a legal right and a corresponding legal duty in the State, and that sympathy or sentiment alone cannot found such a writ.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud began by setting out the text of Rule 11 and Rule 14 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 in full, treating them as the primary lens for the dispute.
On the CBSE expansion claim, the court found it unsupported by any cogent material. No application, representation or communication addressed to CBSE had been produced to demonstrate that additional land was a prerequisite for affiliation. There was also no material to show that CBSE had ever indicated that affiliation would be granted or extended upon allotment of additional land. The court held that mere reliance on the 2016 and 2025 committee recommendations, without contemporaneous material showing present necessity, was of no avail to the petitioner.
On the statutory bar, the court held that a plain reading of Rule 11(b) made it “abundantly clear” that no town land shall be allotted without prior State Government sanction and except for homestead. The subject land fell within the Bishalgarh Municipal area and was therefore town land within the meaning of Rule 11(b). Since the school sought the land for institutional expansion and not homestead, the claim ran contrary to the express restriction in the Rule. The court held that it could not issue a direction contrary to the statutory mandate.
The court then addressed the petitioners' reliance on Rule 14, which sets out conditions for allotment of land for public utility purposes under Section 14(2) of the Act. It held that Rule 14 is conditional and enabling in nature — it lays down the terms on which allotment may be made, such as payment of premium, land revenue liability, and resumption conditions — but does not mandate that land must be allotted whenever a public utility claim is raised. The power remains with the State Government, to be exercised in accordance with law and subject to the restrictions in the Rules. Rule 14 could not be read in isolation so as to override the express bar in Rule 11(b).
On the possession dispute with Gouri Rani Saha, the court declined to enter into questions of title or possession, and observed that the existence of such a dispute also did not justify issuing any direction for allotment in favour of the petitioner.
The court acknowledged that as a welfare State, the respondents are guided by the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution, including Article 41 (right to education) and Article 47 (public health and nutrition). However, it observed that the petitioner's foundational right to impart education had not been curtailed — the school was already operational and functional. The dispute was not about denial of the right to education but about a request for territorial expansion. The court held that an individual institution cannot, under the garb of a welfare mandate, compel the Government to part with specific parcels of its own land. Since the petitioner had no vested legal right to claim allotment of a particular piece of Government khas land as a matter of right, its legal and constitutional rights could not be said to have been infringed by the refusal.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed. Any interim stay operating in the matter was vacated, and pending applications were closed. The impugned communication dated 22 March 2025 issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Sepahijala District, rejecting the allotment application, was left undisturbed.