Tripura High Court Overturns Assam Rifles Dismissal and Property Ownership Ruling

Agartala: The Tripura High Court voided the dismissal of a retired Assam Rifles Junior Commissioned Officer. Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit ruled the force acted arbitrarily. They discarded disciplinary proceedings against Subedar Shibu Limbu. The court ordered the payment of full suspension wages and all retiral benefits.

Limbu faced accusations from a 2014 sting operation. A contractor named C.C. Mathew reportedly filmed 14 personnel accepting bribes. Limbu allegedly took Rs 5,000 for clearing bills. The Assam Rifles initiated a Court of Inquiry in 2014 and later a General Assam Rifles Court. Legal delays halted the trial. The force eventually invoked Rule 20(2) to fire Limbu in 2021. The court found this move baseless. It noted that the Assam Rifles misinterpreted the limitation period for trials. Judges also highlighted that the primary witness, C.C. Mathew, never appeared for cross-examination. The Bench observed: “The reasons cited by the Assam Rifles for abandoning the prescribed disciplinary process were arbitrary, lacking in bona fides and appeared to have been adopted because the prosecution’s case had weakened owing to the non-cooperation of the principal witness.” The force must pay Limbu within three months, including 6% annual interest and Rs 15,000 in litigation costs.

In a separate ruling, the High Court settled a land dispute in Dhalai district. Justice Biswajit Palit declared that permissive possession does not grant ownership rights. The case involved 0.87 acres of land at Chailengta. Horo Priya Sarkar and four others appealed after lower courts dismissed their claim. The original owner, Rebati Mohan Sarkar, had allowed the respondent to occupy the land in 1988. The respondent refused to leave and claimed it was joint family property. The court rejected this argument. It maintained that long-term occupation cannot turn into adverse possession without clear hostile intent. The judge ordered the respondent to vacate the property within three months.