Over 400 residents of Kumarghat petitioned for the SDJM Court to be built in Kumarghat instead of Fatikroy, citing accessibility, available land, and better infrastructure, while opposing demolition of new public structures at the Fatikroy site.
A wave of public sentiment has risen in Kumarghat subdivision as more than 400 residents have united to demand that the proposed Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) Court be established at Kumarghat rather than Fatikroy. The demand was officially submitted through a mass petition to the Sub-Divisional Land Allotment Committee, reflecting strong local opinion about the court’s location and accessibility.
The petition, initiated by local resident Prasanta Chakma along with 411 signatories, was formally received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Kumarghat on September 10, 2025. It was then forwarded to the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Land Allotment Committee and the District Magistrate & Collector of Unakoti District on September 11 for necessary consideration.
Accessibility Concerns Raised
At the heart of the petition is the issue of accessibility. Kumarghat serves as the sub-divisional headquarters and is well connected by both road and rail. Petitioners argue that placing the SDJM Court in Fatikroy, which lies at the “extreme corner” of the subdivision, would cause significant inconvenience. Residents from Kumarghat and Pecharthal would have to spend more time and money to travel to Fatikroy, creating unnecessary hurdles for those seeking judicial services.
By contrast, Kumarghat’s central location within the subdivision makes it far more practical for the majority of residents. The petitioners stressed that a court should serve the people efficiently, and accessibility is one of the most critical factors in delivering justice effectively.
Availability of Land and Infrastructure
The petition highlights that a suitable 3.5-acre plot of government khas land has already been identified at Pabiacherra Mouja in Kumarghat for the court’s construction. This land, they argue, is not only ample but also strategically positioned to benefit litigants and visitors.
Kumarghat is already home to robust infrastructure, including administrative offices, banks, and government institutions. The presence of these facilities ensures that court-goers will not face logistical challenges when they arrive for hearings or other official work. Additionally, Kumarghat’s established transport links make it easier for people from all corners of the subdivision to reach the town without excessive cost or delay.
Concerns About the Fatikroy Site
The petitioners also questioned the feasibility of the Fatikroy site. They pointed out that a newly constructed Higher Secondary (+2) School and a Community Hall already occupy the land there. Constructing the SDJM Court at that location would require the demolition of these public structures. Such a move, according to the petitioners, would not only disrupt educational activities and community services but also amount to a waste of public funds, as the buildings were recently built with taxpayer money.
This concern adds another dimension to the debate, as residents view the potential demolition as an unnecessary duplication of expenditure in a state where financial resources are already limited.
The Way Forward
The petition reflects a strong grassroots-level consensus in favor of Kumarghat. More than 400 voices coming together in a formal plea underlines the seriousness of the demand. Residents expect that the Sub-Divisional Land Allotment Committee and the District Magistrate will take their concerns into account when finalizing the site for the new SDJM Court.
Legal experts and civic observers note that the choice of location for judicial institutions must prioritize accessibility, sustainability, and long-term utility. If the government considers these aspects carefully, Kumarghat appears to have stronger advantages compared to Fatikroy.
| Also Read: Tripura Congress leaders unite in Kailashahar against BJP’s “Stolen Victory” |
For now, the community awaits the decision of the authorities. But the petition has already sparked broader conversations about citizen participation in administrative decision-making and the importance of aligning infrastructure projects with the genuine needs of local populations.
