Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 338 (GAU)

Bijendra Ch. Datta Majumder v. Union of India

2011-04-13

UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2011
JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. The writ Petitioner, Shri Bijendra Ch. Datta Majumder, a senior citizen, filed the present writ petition for a direction to the Respondents to make payment of Rs. 2,61,000/- as rent payable for his land occupied by the Officer Commanding, 78 Road Construction Com. (GREF), i.e. the Respondent No. 4, since 1999 along with interest @ 12% per annum and also for directing the Respondents to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month for use of the aforesaid land of the Petitioner on and from 1.1.2007 to till date. 2. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. PK Biswas, learned Assistant SG appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 as well as Mr. NC Paul, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No. 2 and 5. 3. The pleaded case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- The Petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 0.10 acre situated at Mouja Uttar Charilam, recorded under Khatian No. 55 and 469, CS Plot No. 3856/5678. The aforesaid land of the Petitioner was required by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 for diversion of Agartala-Sabroom road as the timber bridge at km 27 deteriorated. Thus the Respondent No. 4 took up the matter with the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, i.e. the Respondent No. 5. Accordingly, after due survey, the Petitioner was requested by the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for using the said land on rental basis at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. In response to the said request, the Petitioner agreed to cause use of his aforesaid land for the aforesaid purpose and accordingly, the said land was given to the Respondent No. 4 on rental basis in the year 1999 and since then the Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been occupying the land in question without paying the rent to the Petitioner as agreed to. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents No. 3 and 4, the Petitioner took up the matter with the Respondent No. 5 and accordingly, the Respondent No. 5 through his agent communicated the prayer of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 4 on 6.11.2008 and thereafter, again on 22.5.2009, the Respondent No. 5 through Annexure-9 letter requested the Respondent No. 4 for making payment of rent of the land of the Petitioner used by them. When the Respondent No. 4 did not act on the request of the Respondent No. 5, the Petitioner took up the matter with the Lok Adalat vide his application dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). Upon receipt of the aforesaid application of the Petitioner, the Judge, Lok Adalat issued notice to the Respondent No. 4, which was accordingly served on the Respondent No. 4, but none appeared before the Judge, Lok Adalat. Thereafter, on the date fixed, i.e. on 23.9.2010, the Lok Adalat dropped the case of the Petitioner with liberty to him to sue the Respondent No. 4 in appropriate forum. Hence the instant writ petition. 4. The Respondents No. 2 and 5 did not file any counter-affidavit as they admit the claim of the Petitioner and not only that the Respondent No. 5 had already taken up the matter with the Respondent No. 4 for making payment to the Petitioner as he is entitled to in accordance with law. The Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 filed their counter-affidavit wherein they admitted the case of the Petitioner so far occupation of his land on rental basis is concerned, but they took up a plea in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of their counter-affidavit that since 6.10.2006 the land in question is in possession of 112 RCC (GREF). Hence the prayer of the Petitioner is an illegal one. 5. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while urging for the relief sought for would contend that if the Respondent No. 1 Union of India and its agents after taking the land of a citizen on rental basis try to deprive that citizen from the fruits of the agreement between the parties then where that citizen will go. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while urging for the relief sought for would contend that if the Respondent No. 1 Union of India and its agents after taking the land of a citizen on rental basis try to deprive that citizen from the fruits of the agreement between the parties then where that citizen will go. He further contended that the Respondent Union of India and its agents, i.e. the Respondents No. 3 and 4, took the possession of the land of the Petitioner through Respondent No. 5, DM & Collector, West Tripura District and the Respondent No. 5 through the O/C Revenue Section communicated the petition of the Petitioner along with a copy of the report of DCM, Bishalgarh to the Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-8 letter dated 6.11.2008 and not only that thereafter also vide Annexure-9 letter dated 22.5.2009, the Respondent No. 5 requested the Respondent No. 4 to make payment of rent of the occupied land of the Petitioner immediately as per the terms and condition of the agreement between the parties. He also contended that though the monthly rent of the aforesaid land of the Petitioner was earlier fixed at Rs. 3,000/-, but he is entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- per month beyond the period of agreement wherein the rent was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 6. Mr. Paul, learned Govt. Advocate while supporting the action of the Respondent No. 5 submitted that the Respondents No. 3 and 4 may be directed to deposit the money on calculation of the rental amount @ Rs.3,000/- per month for the period for which the aforesaid land was provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 4 and also for the period beyond the period of agreement till the land is handed over to the Petitioner. 7. Mr. Biswas, learned Assistant SG submitted that the Respondent No. 4 was in possession over the land in question on rental basis from 1999 to September 2006 and thereafter, the land in question is in possession of 112 RCC (GREF), which is not a party in the instant case. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for. 8. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and on going through the records as available, this Court has to observe with heavy heart that the Respondents No. 3 and 4 failed to discharge their duties as a result of which the Petitioner is deprived from getting the fruits of the agreement though admittedly the Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been using the land of the Petitioner on rental basis and not only that the Respondents No. 3 and 4 also are not acting on the basis of the request of the Respondent No. 5 on whose request the Petitioner agreed to hand over his land to the Respondent No. 4. It is not clear to this Court how the Respondent Union of India who is supposed to protect the right of the citizens is denying the Petitioner the fruits of the agreement. The Respondents No. 3 and 4 are also depriving the Petitioner from the admitted amount of rent and consequent thereto are denying the right to livelihood of the Petitioner. 9. In view of the above, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to deposit the amount of rent for the land in question @Rs.3,000/- per month from 29.9.1999, i.e. the date on which they took the possession of the aforesaid land of the Petitioner on rental basis till the land is handed over to the Petitioner. If the land in question is occupied by the Respondent No. 4 then the Respondent No. 3 may collect the rent from the said authority and deposit the collected amount with the Respondent No. 5 and the Respondent No. 5 upon receipt of the amount so deposited by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 shall pay the same to the Petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that if the Respondents No. 3 and 4 fail to deposit the admitted amount with the Respondent No. 5 within the stipulated period then the Petitioner will be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum over the admitted amount after expiry of three months. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.