AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these interlocutory applications, being I.A. No.674 of 2015, registered against Cont.Cas(C) No.07 of 2011(DO) [Smt. Anjali Dutta & Ors. Vs. The Revenue Secretary, Govt. of Tripura], I.A. No.30 of 2016, registered against Cont.Cas(C) No.17 of 2011(DO) [Sri Partha Baran Majumder & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura] and I.A. No.31 of 2016, registered against Cont.Cas(C) No.14 of 2011(DO) [Smt. Sipra Dutta Biswas Vs. The State of Tripura], are clustered for disposal by common order inasmuch as all those interlocutory applications are set up against an identical fact having related to the order dated 28.09.2015 delivered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27347/2015, which arose from the final judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 passed in Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011 and the judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 passed in C.M. Appl. No.60/2015, arising from Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011. Moreover, all those interlocutory applications are related to the Notification under No.F.37(212)-REV/68 dated 12.03.1977, by de-requisitioning of the land of the predecessor of the present petitioners, read with the corrigendum under even number dated 03.08.1979.
The predecessor of the petitioners, namely Hamendra Narayan Dutta and others, filed a writ petition, being Civil Rule No.258/1990 as the respondents did not hand-over the de-requisitioned land even after three years of the said notifications.
By the judgment and order dated 02.06.1988, the Gauhati High Court, which had the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter, directed the respondents to pay the requisitioned compensation according to the principles laid down in the Tripura State Security Order from the date of requisition and shall continue to pay the said amount till the land is either acquired under the provisions of law by paying compensation or it will de-requisitioned and possession of the land is re-delivered to the petitioners. It has also been observed there that, as in the requisition order, old survey plot numbers are indicated there can be no difficulty for the respondents to identify the land, even though the land was re-surveyed subsequently. But those predecessors were compelled to file another writ petition, being Civil Rule No.47/1989. By the judgment and order dated 02.02.1996 passed in Civil Rule No.47/1989, the respondents were directed as follows : "In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for his share of the de-requisitioned land as determined under the Tripura State Security order 1358 T.W. for the land de-requisitioned under the order dated 26th Feb''77 of the Govt. of Tripura, Revenue Department under sub-section 1 of section 8 of the said Tripura State Security order 1358 T.W. for the period it was requisitioned and even thereafter until possession of the derequisitioned land is delivered to the petitioner less the amount already paid to the petitioner by way of provisional requisition compensation. The respondents are also directed to make sincere efforts to deliver possession of the derequisitioned land mentioned in the said order dated 26th February, 1977 of the Government of Tripura to the petitioner and Shri Bani Bhusan Sen or their heirs within six months from today and in the event, the respondents No.1 and 2 deliver possession of the said land to the petitioner, they will cease to be liable for compensation for the de-requisitioned land with effect from the date of delivery of possession of the land to the petitioner and such delivery of possession of the de-requisitioned land to the petitioner will be without prejudice to the rights of other persons including under raiyats, if any, who will be entitled to enforce their rights against the petitioner by due process of law. Considering, however, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
[Emphasis added]
Against the said judgment and order dated 02.02.1996, both the Airports Authority of India and the State of Tripura, filed two separate writ appeals, being Writ Appeal No.28/1996 [The Chairman, Airport Authority of India Vs. Hamendra Narayan Datta & Ors.] and Writ Appeal No.33/1996 [The State of Tripura & Anr. Vs. Hamendra Narayan Datta & Anr.]. Those writ appeals were dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 14.06.2002, where it has been categorically held as under : "The aforesaid contentions advanced have been answered earlier by this Court in the judgment and order dated 2.6.88 on an elaborate consideration of the communications, orders and notifications issued by the State authority on the basis of which this Court has already held that the land in dispute is within the boundaries and is encircled by the fencing by the Khowai Airport. That apart, the inability of the State to execute and implement the directions issued by this Court in Civil Rule No.47/99 would hardly make the said directions legally fragile and infirm."
[Emphasis added]
Thereafter, the predecessor of the present petitioners alongwith others, in this batch of interlocutory applications, filed an execution petition, being Ex.P. No.01/2004 [(1) Hemendra Narayan Dutta, (2) Spira Dutta Biswas and (3) Ratna Dutta Majumder Vs. The State of Tripura & Anr.], which petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, where it has been observed in para 19 as under : 19. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the State respondents either to deliver vacant possession of the land which was de-requisitioned by the aforesaid notification dated 26.2.1977 within two months from today. Till then, they will pay requisition compensation all throughout to the parties involved including the petitioner. If the de-requisitioned land is not handed over within the stipulated period, the respondents shall initiate the necessary process towards acquiring the land with payment of appropriate acquisition compensation to the petitioner and others. This shall be done in two months after expiry of the aforesaid stipulated period of two months. Thus, the entire exercise shall be carried out within four months from today of which the later two months will be dependent on the result of the exercise to be carried out by the State respondents in the previous two months."
[Emphasis added]
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 as delivered in Ex.P. No.01/2004, both the State of Tripura and the Airports Authority of India, have filed two separate writ appeals, being Writ Appeal No.81/2007 and Writ Appeal No.88/2007 respectively. A larger bench of the Gauhati High Court decided those writ appeals by the common judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 on elaborate discussion having regard to the chequered history of the claims of the original petitioners. Finally, those writ appeals were dismissed with a direction that the order of the learned Single Judge shall be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the said judgment and order. Since that was not so done, the legal heirs of Hemendra Narayan Dutta and others instituted the contempt proceeding, being Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011. Similar contempt proceedings were also initiated by the other petitioners, being Cont.Cas(C) No.14/2011 and Cont.Cas(C) No.17/2011. In the course of deciding those contempt proceedings, this court passed an order dated 04.09.2013, where this court has observed as under: 26. Since, it is now obvious that the State cannot hand over possession of the land either because it is in possession of other persons or it is within the perimeter of the Air strip or for any other reasons whatsoever, it must pay the compensation for 11.37 acres of land to the petitioners. The State by not complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge, affirmed by the Full Bench to hand over possession of the land within six months of the judgment of the Full Bench, has now missed the bus to hand over possession of the land. It must pay the costs of 11.37 acres of land to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed to initiate proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act within one month from today. It is made clear that the State shall not permit the acquisition proceedings to lapse, otherwise that shall be deemed to be an aggravation of the contempt.
In case, the State does not issue any Notification under Section 4 of the Act, then it must within three months from today pay to the land owners the interim cost of land to be determined by taking into consideration the circle rate/valuation chart as existing on date (04-09-2013), or any other rate fixed by the State Government for assessment of value of land in or about the Khowai Airport for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, registration charges etc. In case, the land owners are not satisfied with the circle rate/valuation chart, they shall be entitled to file a suit for recovery of the balance amount.
[Emphasis added]
In the contempt proceeding, being Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011, the petitioners therein filed another miscellaneous application, being C.M. Appl. No.36/2014, and while deciding the said miscellaneous application, this court has observed as under : 5. In view of the history of the case which is reflected in the judgment, dated 04.09.2013, it is apparent that the land was requisitioned in 1950 and de-requisitioned on 26.02.1997. Since then the land owners have been filing one petition after another for grant of compensation. The State has lost every litigation up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, while this Court accepts the apology of the concerned officials and extends the time, it is made clear that acquisition proceedings under the new Act must be completed and possession of the land be handed over to the original petitioners latest by 30th April, 2015. In case, for any reason, possession of the land cannot be handed over to the original petitioners by 30th April, 2015 then the State shall pay compensation as ordered by us in Para 27 above by taking the circle rate as on 30th April, 2015. The State shall also be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum from 1st May, 2015 onwards.
The State must pay this amount latest by 30th May, 2015 otherwise, the said order shall be executable like a decree of the Court.
[Emphasis added]
Further, another order was passed on 03.07.2015 in C.M. Appl. No.60/2015, arising from Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011(DO), where this court has observed as under : "The State is treating the judgments and orders of this Court with disdain and contempt. This Court would not have hesitated to send the contemnors behind bars even today. This last opportunity is being granted to Mr. Punit Agarwal, Secretary, Revenue to the Government of the Tripura who is present-in-person pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. He is directed to be present on the next date along with the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala. In case the order of this Court is not complied with this shall be deemed to be aggravation of the contempt and this Court will not hesitate to strictly deal with the erring officials including Mr. Punit Agarwal and if necessary, send them to jail for gross contempt of Court. In case this order of this Court is not complied with by the next date Mr. Punit Agarwal, Secretary, Revenue to the Government of the Tripura shall remain present-in-person and shall ensure that reply to the contempt is filed by the next date."
In the meanwhile, the Notification under No.F.09(03)-REV/ACQ/VII/14 dated 24.04.2014 was issued for purpose of exemption from the Social Impact Assessment Study, and the said notification was made for purpose of Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Several notices were issued to the interested persons with copies to the petitioners in the said contempt proceeding. Thereafter, one of the contemnors, namely Puneet Agarwal had approached the apex court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27347/2015 against the judgment and order of this court dated 03.07.2015 passed in Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011 and the judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 passed in C.M. Appl. No.60/2015, arising from Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011. The apex court, by the judgment and order dated 28.09.2015 passed in the said Special Leave to Appeal, has observed as under: "Heard the learned Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner.
It is prayed by the learned Solicitor General that the interest of the State may be protected in view of the fact that there are inter se disputes between the parties to whom the respondents have sold the disputed land, as can be seen from Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The learned Solicitor General seeks some time for making the calculation and depositing the amount. In the peculiar facts of this case, we permit the State to make the deposit before the High Court so that the High Court would be in a position to take a final call on the inter se disputes, as and when the request is made for withdrawal.
Though the Solicitor General prays for three months'' time to make the deposit, we are not inclined to grant that much time in the peculiar facts of the case. Six weeks'' time is granted to deposit the amount.
Personal attendance of the petitioners before the High Court is dispensed with.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with the above clarifications."
In terms of the said order, the respondents have deposited an aggregate sum of Rs.8,81,176,500 by the cheque No.625835 dated 07.10.2015 in this Registry. The present interlocutory applications have been made by the predecessors of the original petitioners who fought for their compensation for more than three and half decades. The apex court has recorded the submission of the Solicitor General of India who was representing the petitioner to the effect that, for the sale of the de-requisitioned land to several persons inter se interest over the said land has been created.
The State-respondents have filed an elaborate reply in I.A. No.674/2015, arising from Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011 covering the entire subject matter regarding disbursement of the money to the legal representatives of the original writ petitioners on relying the report under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. By the order dated 13.07.2015, the Land Acquisition Collector, Khowai, Tripura, has observed as under : "On perusal of the documents produced by the objectors it appears that original owner of the de-requisitioned land Harendra Narayan Dutta and Bani Bhusan Sen sold the entire land under acquisition to the objectors by registered sale deeds and some of them have been in possession of the said land originally as korfa raiyat under the original owners and at present as raiyat under the government and the owner-opp.-parties, being the legal heirs of the original owner Harendra Narayan Dutta, have no right, title and interest or possession over the de-requisitioned land."
In the said report, the following persons have been shown in occupation of the various parts of the de-requisitioned land. The reference to the occupier, sale deed and possession etc. has been elaborately referred in the said report. The name of the occupiers as transpired from the said report are as under :
1(a) Shri Jitendra Chandra Debnath,
1(b) Shri Rabindra Debnath, - both are sons of late Digendra Chandra Debnath, residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Manik Sen, son of late Felu Sen, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Harendra Chandra Mandal, son of late Kasiram Mandal, resident of village Khowai Town, Khowai, Tripura
Smt. Priti Das, wife of Shri Kajal Das, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
5(a) Shri Paresh Chandra Das,
5(b) Shri Prabodh Chandra Das, - both are sons of late Mahesh Chandra Das, residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Prabodh Chandra Das, son of late Mahesh Chandra Das, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Monoranjan Biswas, son of late Nibaran Biswas, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Rabindra Chandra Ghosh, son of late Harendra Chandra Ghosh, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
9(a) Shri Haridas Das,
9(b) Shri Gobinda Das,
9(c) Shri Manik Das, - all are sons of late Gopal Chandra Das, residents of West Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
9(d) Smt. Sukla Das,
9(e) Smt. Anjali Das, - both are daughters of late Gopal Chandra Das, residents of West Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Niranjan Roy, son of late Suresh Chandra Roy, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
11(a) Shri Narayan Chandra Ghosh, son of late Nagendra Chandra Ghosh
11(b) Shri Rakhal Chandra Ghosh, son of late Jatindra Chandra Ghosh - both are residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
The petitioners have quite categorically asserted that the de-requisitioned land is within the Khowai airstrip and within the boundary of the said airport, but the land which the predecessor or their legal representatives had sold to the occupiers or any other persons were beyond the boundary of the Khowai airport and those lands are not part of the de-requisitioned land and as such the observation of the District Collector or the Secretary, Revenue Department in the order dated 15.10.2015 is absolutely without any substance and de hors the records. Those so called ''occupiers'' are strangers to the claim.
Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has emphatically submitted that this plea has been raised by the State machinery to frustrate the claim of the legal representatives of the original writ petitioners. As such, this court may not allow such ploy to succeed.
From the other side, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General has asserted that the report under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 prima facie cannot be treated as liable to be rejected or brushed aside, in as much as such report was prepared after due inquiry made under Section 11 of the said Act. Moreover, the apex court has taken cognizance of such report and on the basis of that it has been observed by the apex court that the final call as to the inter se interest over the de-requisitioned land or its value shall be taken by this court. Without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners in this batch of interlocutory applications in any manner, it would be apposite for this court, particularly in view of the order dated 28.09.2015 delivered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27347/2015 to give notice to those so called occupiers, whose names has entered in the report under Section 15 of the said Act [of 2013] for appearance before this court and to submit their response, if any, against the claim of the petitioners in this batch of interlocutory applications.
Having observed thus, the Registry is directed to issue notice to the following persons with a copy of this order and a copy of the interlocutory application, being I.A. No.674/2015, arising from Cont.Cas(C) No.07/2011, returnable on 28.02.2017:
1(a) Shri Jitendra Chandra Debnath,
1(b) Shri Rabindra Debnath, - both are sons of late Digendra Chandra Debnath, residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Manik Sen, son of late Felu Sen, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Harendra Chandra Mandal, son of late Kasiram Mandal, resident of village Khowai Town, Khowai, Tripura
Smt. Priti Das, wife of Shri Kajal Das, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
5(a) Shri Paresh Chandra Das,
5(b) Shri Prabodh Chandra Das, - both are sons of late Mahesh Chandra Das, residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Prabodh Chandra Das, son of late Mahesh Chandra Das, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Monoranjan Biswas, son of late Nibaran Biswas, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Rabindra Chandra Ghosh, son of late Harendra Chandra Ghosh, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
9(a) Shri Haridas Das,
9(b) Shri Gobinda Das,
9(c) Shri Manik Das, - all are sons of late Gopal Chandra Das, residents of West Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
9(d) Smt. Sukla Das,
9(e) Smt. Anjali Das, - both are daughters of late Gopal Chandra Das, residents of West Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
Shri Niranjan Roy, son of late Suresh Chandra Roy, resident of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
11(a) Shri Narayan Chandra Ghosh, son of late Nagendra Chandra Ghosh
11(b) Shri Rakhal Chandra Ghosh, son of late Jatindra Chandra Ghosh - both are residents of village Char Ganki, Khowai, Tripura
It is to be mentioned that for submitting response, extension of time will not be permitted by this court. It is made further clear that, if those noticees do not submit their replies within the stipulated date, this court would be compelled to decide the matter deeming that those noticees do not have any claim over the sum of compensation as deposited in this court. The Process Server shall first try to serve the notices to the noticees as stated above and if not possible, such notices shall be served through the District Collector, Khowai, Tripura. For this purpose, the District Collector, Khowai, Tripura, is directed to serve the notices on the so called occupiers as named above through the Process Server of his office who will be accompanied by the Process Server of the court. The Process Server shall, in the event of non-availability of the noticees or refusal, shall paste such notices in presence of at least 2(two) witnesses in a conspicuous place of their house and file the affidavit in the usual form for perusal of this court. The report of the Process Server shall be submitted by 10.02.2017 without fail.