A gift deed, being unconditional, does not impose a duty on the state to utilize the land in a specific time frame as long as the intended purpose remains valid. Premature concerns of the plaintiff regarding land usage are not actionable.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff, appellant herein that he was the owner and possessor in respect of the subject land. Out of concern and generosity for public utility for Motor Vehicle Stand, he has donated the subject land to the Government and, accordingly, a 'Gift Deed' has been executed vide registered gift deed bearing No.1-00042 dated 08/01/07 in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Tripura represented by the concerned department for the specific purpose of utilizing the subject land for motor vehicle stand. Thereafter, when the State has issued a notification for establishing a market yard in the subject land in violation of the very purpose of 'Gift Deed', the plaintiff has issued a notice under Section 80(1) of C.P.C. and thereafter filed a suit before the Trial Court vide T.S. 167 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1. The defendants therein have filed their written statement before the Trial Court and at Para-12 of the written statement, the defendants have categorically stated thus:-

'However, the statements as made by the plaintiff that the suit land would be used for development of Boxanagar market are not true and correct. It has already been stated that though the project of development of Boxangar market was sanctioned, but subsequently as per decision of the Boxanagar Panchayet Samity the said project was transferred to the Veluarchar Market instead of Boxanagar market'

3. The defendants contended before the Trial Court that the subject land which is taken on gift will be utilized for the purpose of Motor Vehicle Stand and it is not correct to say as stated by the plaintiff that the State is deviating from the contention in the gift deed and that further they are constructing a market in the subject land. Thus, they prayed to dismiss the suit as the same is premature and it is filed under apprehension.

4. The Trial Court having given weightage to the case of the defendant-State dismissed the suit by order and judgment dated 09.06.2014.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court vide Title Appeal No.38 of 2014 before the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4 and the same contentions were advanced. After hearing the both sides, the Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and has appreciated the arguments of the State and dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018 and 10.08.2018.

6. Further aggrieved by both the concurrent orders, the plaintiff has preferred the present RSA.

7. In continuation of the arguments advanced by the counsels before the Trial Court and Appellate Court, Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further represented that as on today, the said land is vacant and there is a reasonable apprehension that the State Government is proceeding to allot the subject land for construction of market yard by defeating the very essence of the 'Gift Deed'.

8. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate