Judgment · High Court

Mr. SC Sen, Advocate Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Saha, Advocate HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 25/08/2022 Heard Mr. SC Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the contemnors. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has submitted that the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by this court has been complied with and it has been stated by way of affidavit-in-opposition. At para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the contemnors have stated thus:- “That, with regard to paragraph No. 3 to 5 , I say that the Revenue Case No. 1/Rev/PS/2015 was initiated on 04/02/2015 U/s 178(4) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 much before the initiation of the Writ Petition No. WP(C) 38 of 2016. The Revenue Case No. 1/Rev/PS/2015 was kept in abeyance on 30/01/2016 as the matter became sub-judice with initiation of aforesaid writ petition.

Only after dismissal of the Writ Petition No. WP(C) 38 of 2016 by the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura vide order dated 18/02/2021, the said Revenue case No. 1/Rev/PS/2015 was revived on 08/03/2021 Thereafter, case hearing was scheduled on several dates including on 01/01/2022, 19/02/2022, 16/04/2022 & 11/05/2022. But none appeared on behalf of the petitioners’ i.e Kamala Tea Company Ltd. without any step. Finally, on 04/06/2022, Manager, Fatikcherra Tea Estate appeared for hearing & submitted representation making reference to Order dated 03/12/2021 of Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in WP(C) 38 of 2016. Accordingly, the instant Revenue Case No. 01/Rev/PS/2015 has been closed vide order date 04/06/2022 in compliance of the order dated 03/12/2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in Case No. WP(C) 38 of 2016 ” Thereafter, at para 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that “…The physical enquiry of the Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Mohanpur has been conducted on 24/03/2022 in compliance to the order dated 03/12/2021 passed in case No.

WP(C) 38 of 2016 of Hon’ble High Court of Tripura where Sri Joydeb Ganguly, Manager Fatikcherra Tea Estate was also present. The physical enquiry date was also mutually decided by the SDM Mohanpur in a meeting on 10/03/2022 attended by Sri Ganguly, Manager Fatikcherra Tea Estate. The physical enquiry was done to find out whether the BSF authority has possession over excess land measuring 44.49 acre as claimed by the Petitioner, exceeding the land acquired measuring

123.24 acre by the BSF. It is clearly stated in the enquiry report by the Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Mohanpur dated 31/03/2022 and the report of SDM, Mohanpur dated 22/07/2022 that BSF authority has possession over an area measuring 123.24 acre of land acquired for them and they are not possessing any excess land of 44.49 acres. Fatikcherra Tea Estate representative did not submit any land details of

44.49 acres excess land as claimed by them to be occupied by BSF. Further, during field enquiry also, he did not identify the excess land on ground.” In view of the aforesaid statements made by the contemnors, it is clear that they have complied with the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by this court and they have come to a conclusion that the BSF authority has not been possessing any land in excess of the land acquired, that is, the land measuring 123.24 acres. This is a contempt application and as such, this court cannot enter into any other question which are tried to be projected by learned counsel of the petitioner regarding the reliability of enquiry report. In view of this, the instant contempt application stands dropped. JUDGE Saikat