Point of Law: Satisfaction of Government is sufficient to initiate process of requisition and acquisition of land in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department, Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the GMDA, and Mr. CKS Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the State.

2. On 24.05.2023, when this matter was called in motion stage, the learned Advocate General for the State had opposed the prayer for interim relief and undertook to file affidavit-in-opposition on 25.05.2023 on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kamrup (M) (respondent no.4), and accordingly, the matter was fixed for being listed in motion column on 26.05.2023 i.e. today. When the matter was called today, the Court was informed that the respondent no. 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 25.05.2023 and the petitioners had also filed its affidavit-in-reply today. Both the affidavits were called for and received from the filing section. Accordingly, with the consent of all, the matter was finally heard at the motion stage.

3. The petitioner no.1 is an association under the name and style of All Assam Tennis Association. By an order dated 10.06.1999, land admeasuring 5 bigha covered by Dag No. 602 of Mouza-Beltola was allotted to the petitioner no.1 association, which was followed by allotment of another 3 bigha adjoining land to the petitioner no.1 association by order dated 04.07.2003. The petitioner no.1 association, with financial assistance and other support from the Government of Assam, constructed a Tennis stadium containing 6 (six) synthetic courts with four flood-lit courts. The petitioners claim that the petitioner no.1 has 350 members, and that through 6 (six) coaches including a Head Coach provided by Alexander Waaske Tennis University, Frankfurt, the petitioner no. 1 association conducts training programmes for the benefit of youths of age group between 6 to 18 years with the requisite paraphernalia. It also holds several State and National level tennis tournaments/ events. It is projected that the said tennis stadium was put to beneficial use in the National Games 2007.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that by the impugned order under memo no. LA.16/2023/199 dated 25.04.2023, issued by the respondent no. 4, the said authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “1964 Act” for brevity) had requisitioned the land allotted to the petitioner no.1 association along with building standing thereon with effect from the date of the order, purportedly “… for the purpose of development of Silsako Beel as a reservoir and facilitate the mitigation of urban flooding in pursuance of Department of Housing & Urban Affairs, Dispur letter No. 280916/2023/3 dated 3rd March, 2023”.

5. Accordingly, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents to cancel/ revoke/ rescind/ set aside the said impugned order dated 25.04.2023 issued by the respondent no. 4 for eviction from the land.

6. The first contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners was that the condition precedent for issuance of notice under Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act not being present, the said impugned notice would stand vitiated and the requisition and notice for eviction was without jurisdiction. In this regard, it was submitted that the respondent no. 4 had acted at the dictate of others and passed the impugned order without recording his own satisfaction, and without applying his judicial mind as to the scheme for which requisition and eviction process was initiated, which is not sustainable on facts and in law. In support of the said submissions, reliance is placed on the case of 1977 AC 1014: 1976 AllER 665; AIR 1975 SC 550; and AIR 1952 SC 16. This was countered by the learned Advocate General