Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Frontier Associates (P.) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Others - Respondents.
WP(C) No. 3274 of 2010
Decided on : 19-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Barkataki
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Deka and Mr. R. Dhar
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Companies Act, 1956 – Encroachment – Possession – By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) to pay requisition compensation for requisition of 75 bighas of land and to handover possession of the said land back to the petitioner upon derequisition, free from encroachment – Held, In view of change in the nature and character of the land by way of permanent construction by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as well as due to encroachment over other plots of land and in view of the clear direction of this court, derequisitioning order cannot be sustained – Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are directed to acquire the said 75 bighas of land in accordance with law and pay land acquisition compensation with all its components like solatium, interest, etc., to the petitioner – Whether respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has failed to pay or deposit requisition compensation is a matter between the State and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for which petitioner cannot be prejudiced. – It is for the State to take action against respondent Nos. 6 and 7. – Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 cannot take the plea that if it is asked to pay requisition compensation, it will be a question of national prestige. – It is entirely for the Government to take a decision; if it wants to donate that land to the Indian Red Cross Society, Assam State Branch it can do so but since the land belonged to the petitioner, it has to be compensated. – Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government advocate, Assam.
2. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) to pay requisition compensation for requisition of 75 bighas of land and to handover possession of the said land back to the petitioner upon derequisition, free from encroachment.
3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide certificate of incorporation bearing No. 2740/1987-88 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Assam, Meghalaya, etc., at Shillong. Late H. Dombrain was the owner of two tea estates, namely, Tepasia and Choonsali Tea Estates. CWR Dombrain being the son and sole surviving legal heir of late H. Dombrain had sold Choonsali Tea Estate to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 1.6.1991 along with all the movable and immovable properties of the tea estate, i.e., Choonsali Tea Estate. Thus, by virtue of the said sale, petitioner became the absolute owner of Choonsali Tea Estate measuring total area of 3992 bighas, 2 kathas, 19 lessas and took physical possession thereof.
4. Prior to execution of the sale deed as above, Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup requisitioned a plot of land of the said tea estate measuring 75 bighas vide requisition order dated 13.12.1977. Consequently, possession was taken over from the previous owner and handed over to respondent No. 6 after destroying 75,692 numbers of fully grown up tea bushes and other valuable trees.
5. However, aforesaid requisition order was withdrawn by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 3.7.1980. Thereafter, an order dated 31.7.1980 was passed again requisitioning 75 bighas of the aforesaid land. Out of the 75 bighas, 55 bighas were under Dag No. 9 and remaining 20 bighas under Dag No. 8, both of FS Grant Patta No. 1.
6. Land Acquisition Officer had written letter dated 22.4.1983 to respondent No. 7 and submitted statement of requisition compensation amounting to Rs. 4,21,875 asking her to deposit the said amount with the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.
7. In the meanwhile, Revenue Minister expressed the view that since no compensation was paid for over 10 years on account of requisition, Government should enquire whether the land could be derequisitioned.
8. There was a land ceiling proceeding under Case No. 195/1974 which was initiated against the said tea estate. In the said proceeding, an order was passed on 13.12.1990 to the effect that the land measuring 75 bighas under occupation of respondent No. 6 should be retained by the tea estate. After determining the requisition compensation, respondent No. 6 was directed to pay the same to the tea estate but nothing was done.
9. Till 1994, Government had neither paid requisition compensation nor paid any compensation for uprooting the tea bushes to the petitioner.
10. Faced with such a situation, previous owner CWR Dombrain and petitioner jointly filed a writ petition before this court being Civil Rule No. 2818/1994 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 5.12.1995 by directing the authority to do the needful to acquire the land within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the said order. Authority was also given liberty to take a decision to derequisition some part of the land if it was considered necessary. However, authority was directed to pay requisition compensation to the petitioner within three months.
11. It is alleged that the said order of this court has not been complied with for which petitioners of Civil Rule No. 2818/1994 filed a petition for initiation of contempt proceeding agai
