Back
gets relief as keeps land possession order in abeyance
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of , the has directed the to first decide the pending appeal of before taking possession of over 211 bighas of land. Justice Manish Choudhury, hearing a writ petition, held that the under is a that cannot be rendered .
A Land Requisition and a Pending Appeal
The dispute concerns a parcel of land measuring 211 Bighas 1 Katha 19 Lessas at Rajabali Bagan in the Morangi Revenue Circle of Golaghat district. On , the , acting as a person authorised by the , passed an order under requisitioning the land for setting up an Industrial Estate of .
, which claims to be the owner in occupation of the land, challenged this order before the on , under Section 3(3) of the Act. The company contended that the purpose for which the requisition order was passed did not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 3(1). While this appeal remained pending, the District Commissioner issued a further order on , under Section 4(1) of the Act, directing Mouchak Agro to surrender or deliver possession within ten days.
"A Cannot Be "
The High Court noted that the appeal under Section 3(3) had not yet been decided by the . The State itself confirmed this when the matter came up for hearing. Justice Choudhury observed that the statute provides a to a person affected by a requisition order, and such a right must be meaningful.
"If a statute provides such a right to appeal, such right to appeal is not to be . A right to appeal under Section 3[3] is a afforded to a landowner or a person interested in the land sought to be requisitioned."
The Court also drew a clear distinction between . While acquisition involves and is permanent, requisition is temporary and only involves taking possession, with the title remaining with the owner.
"Whereas acquisition involves an element of permanency and finality involving a ; the concept of requisition is merely to take over the domain or control over the property without acquiring the rights of ownership and it is ordinarily understood that requisition by its very nature is of ."
The Court was of the view that if possession was taken before the appeal was decided, and the nature and character of the land was changed, it could impact the petitioner's rights even if the appeal was subsequently decided in its favour. To balance the equities, the Court directed that the order dated under Section 4(1) be kept in abeyance until the disposes of the pending appeal.
"The Court is the considered view that if the Authorised Officer on the basis of the Order passed under Section 4[1] of the 1964 Act takes over possession under Section 4[1] of the 1964 Act before the appeal is decided and changes the nature and character of the parcel of land then the right of the petitioner is going to be impacted, even if the Order to be passed by the in the appeal comes subsequently in favour of the appellant."
Directions and Final Order
The disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The shall dispose of the appeal filed by on , as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
- The order dated under Section 4(1) shall remain in abeyance and will abide by the decision taken by the in the appeal.
- The parties shall maintain with respect to the parcel of land till the appeal is decided.
The Court made no order as to costs.
The ruling reaffirms the principle that must be given effect to before is taken, and that landowners cannot be deprived of possession without the being exhausted.
