High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6534/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. S Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N Borah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Mr. N Upadhyay, learned State co unsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. DK Sarmah, learned counse l appearing for respondent No. 5. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure -7) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue (Settlemen t) Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), whereby it was informed th at 20 (twenty) bighas of Sarkari land covered by Dag No. 587 of village Helagog under Dimoria Mouza has been given on temporary lease in favour of National Hig hway Authority of India for use as site camp, laboratory, storage of constructio n materials and equipments by the Civil Agency in connection with four lanning o f existing NH-37 from Guwahati to Sonapur subject to the conditions mentioned th erein. The case projected by the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that they belong to Sch eduled Tribe (plain) community and are residents of South Kamrup Tribal Belt. Fo r the purpose of livelihood, the petitioners had developed Dag No. 587 of villag e Helagog in order to establish a horticulture plantation. Unused vacant land is available within Dag No. 587 but the authorities, most arbitrarily and illegall y, had granted temporary lease in favour of the respondent No. 4 in respect of l and in their possession causing great prejudice to the petitioners. Coming to know about the impending allotment in favour of the respondent No. 4, the petitioners had also filed a representation dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure-7) to the Secretary, Revenue (Settlement Department) praying for allotment of other a
Legal Reasoning
vailable alternative land to the respondent No. 4. Mr. S Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners were in possession of land measuring 20 bighas for carrying on horticulture act ivities, the respondents ought not to have given on temporary lease the said plo t of land to the respondent No. 4 or to the respondent No. 5. The State had acte d without application of mind inasmuch as other suitable plots of land were avai lable for the purpose of grant of temporary lease to the respondent No. 4. It is in this premise, the learned counsel submits that the order dated 15.02.20 07 being illegal and arbitrary, is liable to be interfered with. Mr. N Borah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, with reference to t he affidavit filed, submits that the land was given on temporary lease to the re spondent No. 4 for a short term project implementation period for the ongoing wi dening and strengthening of existing NH-37 from 2-lane to 4-lane in the East Wes t Corridor Project in the state of Assam. Prior to the grant of temporary lease, which is a subject matter of the present case, some other land was also given t o the respondent No. 4 on temporary lease basis for establishment of plant and m achinery required for the said project. It is submitted by him that the petitioners have got no inherent right to contin ue in the land in question and for good and sufficient reason having element of public interest, temporary lease has been given to the respondent No. 4 so that the project could be completed without any difficulty. Mr. DK Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, with reference to the affidavit filed, submits that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question and the said plot of land was free from all encumbrances and t he respondent No. 5 did not get any obstruction from any quarter while taking po ssession. It is submitted by him that the respondent No. 5 is in possession of t he land by virtue of being awarded the contract by the respondent No. 4 for wide ning and strengthening of existing NH-37 from Sonapur to Guwahati from two lane to four lane under phase 2 of East West Corridor Project. He also draws the atte ntion of this Court to the fact that though initially the lease was granted for a period of 1 (one) year, it was extended for a period of 3 (three) years, as th e construction of the widening of the road had not been completed. From time to time, temporary lease has been extended and presently also there is a move to ex tend the lease in question upto April, 2014. The learned counsel echoes the submission of Mr. Borah that no right of the peti tioners has been infringed by the grant of temporary lease to the respondent No. 4. Mr. N Upadhyay, learned State counsel adopts the arguments of the learned counse l for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the ma terials on record. Materials on record disclose that on the request of the respondent No. 4, land h as been allotted temporarily. Land measuring 100 bighas including the present 20 bighas was given on temporary lease to the respondent No. 4 for establishment o f Hot Mix plant, Stone Crusher, Wet Mix plant, Laboratory, storage of constructi on materials and equipment and other plant & machineries related to the construc tion of 4-laning of existing National Highway-37 from Khanapara, Guwahati-Sonapu r section. Though it was initially for a period of 1 (one) year, it had been extended from time to time and the letter dated 27.11.2012, which is produced by Mr. Sarmah du ring the course of hearing today indicates that the lease was extended upto 31.1 2.2012. The letter dated 27.11.2012 is a letter written by the respondent No. 4 to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Govt. of Assam for exte nding the period of lease upto April, 2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not contend that the state authorit ies do not have any power to grant temporary settlement or temporary lease. The sole argument of Mr. Gogoi is that when there are other plots of land available, there could have been no justification for the respondents to grant lease of th e land in possession of the petitioners, and the requirement of land for respond ent Nos. 4 and 5 could have been met by giving lease of vacant, unused plot of l and available in the vicinity. It is relevant to note that the petitioners have not filed any reply-affidavit d isputing the averments made by respondent No. 5 that the plot of land measuring 20 bighas was free from encumbrances and the petitioners were not in possession. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they had been allotted the land in question by the Government or that they had been forcefully evicted from the said 20 bighas of land. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no right of the petitioners has been infringed by the impugned tempora ry lease granted in favour of the respondent No. 4. The very nature of the temporary lease and the purpose for which it has been gra nted make it abundantly clear that such lease was necessary for achieving a larg er public interest. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in this application and acco rdingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. The letter dated 27.11.2012 is made part of the record.