Jokai India Ltd. & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors.). On the other hand
Case Details
WP(C) 3268/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr Counsel appearing for the petitioners. I h ave also heard Mrs. R. Gogoi, learned State Counsel and Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, le arned CGC. The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-VIII order dated 23.3.2005 p assed by the Government of Assam in the Revenue (Reforms) Department, by which, the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation in respect of its ceili ng surplus land allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 has been rejected. Th e impugned order has been passed in terms of the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5655/2004, by which, the respondents were directed to t
Legal Reasoning
ake a decision in respect of payment of compensation to the petitioner. According to Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner although it w as ceiling surplus land, but since the same was allotted to the respondent No. 4 in violation of the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiing on Land Holdings Act, 1956, the petitioner company is entitled to com pensation as per the provision of the Land Acquisition Act. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1990 (2 ) GLJ 342 (Jokai India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.). On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned CGC, in reference to the stand in th e counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the CPRF au thority has paid the amount as was directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar. The amount deposited is Rs. 2,58,247.27p vide cheque dated 8.4.1983. Re ferring to the tripartite meeting held on 20.1.2003 in the office chamber of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, in which the representatives o f the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 were also present, it has been stated that the categorical stand on behalf of the respondent No. 4 was that the afore said amount having already been deposited, the claim of the petitioner for payme nt of compensation of Rs. 3,09,45,363.17p does not arise. It has been stated in the affidavit that the petitioners are precluded from re-agitating their grievan ce again and again. Mrs. Gogoi, learned State Counsel submits that the writ petition is misconceived . Referring to the stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 on 22.12.2005, she submits that there has been sufficien t compliance of the provision of Section 17 of the Act. In paragraph-10 of the s aid counter affidavit, it has been stated thus: (cid:28)10. & & & & & & &. In this instant case, Govt. had preferentially allotted 2646 bigha s of land out of the 4115 bighas so acquired under the Ceiling Act to the landle ss people of the locality/landless people. Only after that, the remaining availa ble surplus land was allotted to CRPF which is a Central Govt Deptt. and wanted land for public purpose. The instant judgment as referred in the paragraph (Joka i India Ltd. Bazalone Tea Co. Ltd. vs- State of Assam and ors) relates to settle ment of land to persons and has not barred transfer of land in favour of Govt. D eptt. Evidently in this case the CRPF is not a (cid:28)person (cid:29) under the Ceiling Act as defined in section 3 (j) of the Act which reads - (cid:28)Person includes an individual, a family, a joint family a trustee, a company, a body corporate, a partnership farm, a society or an association of individuals whether incorporated or not. (cid:29) I hereby humbly submits that the allegation of violation of the provision of Cei ling Act is not correct and is denied. The Govt. had also allowed, by way of exe mption, as many as 1465 bighas (696 bigha + 1465 bighas) of land even to the Gar den authority although the Garden is a person as referred under Section 1717(3) of the Ceiling Act. The Garden, however, kept silent on this point. (cid:29) Referring to the above stand in the counter affidavit, learned State Counsel sub mits that the State Government having preferentially allotted 2646 bighas of lan d out of acquired 4115 bighas of land to the landless people of the locality/lan dless people, there was no impediment towards allotting the available ceiling su rplus land to the CRPF, which is a Central Government Department and wanted land for public purpose. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned cou nsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. In Jokai India Ltd. (supra), the ceiling surplus land although was acquired from the petitioner, a Tea Estate, but immediately thereafter the land was allotted to another Tea Estate. It was in such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court held that the allotment was illegal. Referring to Section 17 of the Act, i t was also held that the provision contained therein ought to have been followed by allotting the land to the landless people. Unlike the said case, in the inst ant case, out of the ceiling surplus land as stated in the counter affidavit fil ed by the respondent No. 2, preferential allotment of 2646 bighas of land was ma de in favour of the landless people of the locality/landless people. It is only in respect of a portion of remaining ceiling surplus land allotment was made in favour of the CRPF. Apart from the above, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that Ceiling Case being L.C. No. 1/74-75 was started in 1974-76 and the final order was issued on 11.12.1975 when the present petitioners were not the owners of the Tea Estate. It has been stated that the owner was one M/s. Doyapur Tea Company, which changed its name to Rasoi Vanaspati and Industries L td. and under this name preferred a revision petition before the Government on 1 6.1.1976. The Government passed an order on 2.8.1981 releasing as many as 636 bi ghas of land from the land acquired under the Ceiling Act. After the aforesaid order, the Tea Estate handed over the possession to the Gove rnment giving an undertaking on 2.9.1981 clearly stating the fact. The managemen t of the Tea Estate did not complain anything as has been raised in this writ pe tition. It has further been stated that the present petitioner having come into existence upon purchase of the Tea Estate after 9 years of handing over the land
Decision
in question, it has no locus standi to file the writ petition. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that when the revisi on petition was filed by Rasoi Vanaspati & Industries Ltd, the petitioner did no t have any grievance nor made any complaint about the ceiling surplus acquired l and. The aforesaid stand of the respondents in their counter affidavits filed on 22.1 2.2005 and 16.9.2005 has not been denied by the petitioners by filing any reply affidavit for all these years. If the petitioners were not the owner of the Tea Company and the Government had preferentially allotted the ceiling surplus land to the landless people, it cann ot be said that there was violation of the provisions of the Act. In that view o f the matter, the decision on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is not at all applicable to the facts involved in the present ca se. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly, it is dismissed.