ORDER 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Sri Fazar Ali, for ac­quiring his land as mentioned in the instant writ petition which has fallen outside the border fencing and also for a direction to the respondents to acquire his land or to purchase the same. 2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.C. Deb, learned counsel, who is appearing on instruc­tion of Mr. S. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant S.G. appearing for the re­spondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 and Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is fully covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 169 of 2007 (Sri Ahid Miah v. The Union of India) as well as the decision of the learned single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2009 (Md. Alamgir Miah v. The Union of India). Thus, he prays that a similar order may be passed. 4. Pleaded case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has been residing at village Kulubari under Sonamura Sub-Division. He has got his landed properties in the said vil­lage where he has constructed his house and is also cultivating certain areas of land. The respondents have acquired some land of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of border fencing by barbed wire maintaining a distance of about 150 yards inside from Bangladesh border, and a border road inside the fencing has been proposed to be con­structed. But the land, houses etc. lying on the other side of the proposed fencing has not been acquired by the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition. 5. But the land, houses etc. lying on the other side of the proposed fencing has not been acquired by the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition. 5. The State-respondents in their counter-affidavit have contended that the fencing along the border has been constructed in the State of Tripura as per the decision taken by the Government of India as well as follow­ing the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time and as per the existing guidelines/instructions dated 5-11-2003 and subsequent guidelines/instructions dated 12-5-2004, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the fencing is being erected at a distance of 150 yards from the zero line for greater interest of the country, i.e. to prevent unscrupulous activities and illegal infiltra­tion from the side of Bangladesh so that In­dian Nationals can lead their lives in safe and sound condition. Provision has been kept for gates at a reasonable distance so that the lo­cal people can have access to their lands fall­ing outside the fencing for cultivation and other gainful purposes. Thus, there is no scope for acquisition of the entire stretch of land falling in between the fencing and the zero line as per existing guidelines/instruc­tions. It is also stated that the lands of Plot Nos. 3301/P & 3302/P, area measuring 0.23 & 0.17 acres, classified as ‘Chara’ (Tilla) and ‘Bastu’ (Tilla), recorded in the name of one Faizor Ali and others of Kulubari, under Khatian Nos. 200 and 416/1 respectively have already been acquired by the Govern­ment for the purpose of border fencing at N.C. Nagar Mouja. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right to ask the respon­dents to acquire his land fallen outside the border fencing. 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, while urging for the relief sought for would contend that in W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2009 (Md. Alamgir Miah v. Union of India) the petitioners of that case made a prayer for compensation as the ac­cess of the petitioners to their lands was con­trolled by a security gate located at a great distance from their dwelling house. Mr. Bhattacharji, while urging for the relief sought for would contend that in W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2009 (Md. Alamgir Miah v. Union of India) the petitioners of that case made a prayer for compensation as the ac­cess of the petitioners to their lands was con­trolled by a security gate located at a great distance from their dwelling house. There is no proper path or track from the house of the petitioners to the security gate and the peti­tioners faced starvation arising from the loses of their livelihood and considering the en­tire facts, a learned single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench on 19-3-2013 directed the State-respondents therein to implement the scheme of rehabilitation for the oustees/disadvantaged/displaced persons for construction of the border fencing within a period of six months which would include the time for acquisition and taking posses­sion of the land as stated to have been earmarked by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6, i.e. the respondents-Union of India, were also directed to allow the petitioners to use the temporary gate, proximate to their land, in the two crop seasons for taking their power-tiller and other agricultural implements to the agricultural land through the gate on such occasions as would be required and for that purpose the Officer-in-charge, BSF of the proximate BOP would make necessary and suitable arrangement. Mr. Bhattacharji also urges for a simi­lar order. 7. Ms. Lodh, learned Additional Govern­ment Advocate submits that the case of Md. Alamgir Miah is totally different from the case of the present petitioner. In that case the homestead lands and the other landed prop­erties of the petitioners had fallen entirely outside the border fence and no path was constructed for facilitating them for their movement to their dwelling houses. But in the instant case, the alignment of the border fencing passes through the middle of the Plot Nos. 3301/P & 3302/P as stated supra and almost equal quantity of land fell inside and outside of the border fencing. She has again referred paragraph 10 of the counter-affida­vit filed by the State-respondents, wherein it is specifically stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura vide his letter No. 263 of FLA-40/SDM/SNM/2004 dated 27-6-2007 reported that payment of compensation under Aptt. SI. No. 25 & 37 amounting to Rs. 68,721/- and Rs. She has again referred paragraph 10 of the counter-affida­vit filed by the State-respondents, wherein it is specifically stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura vide his letter No. 263 of FLA-40/SDM/SNM/2004 dated 27-6-2007 reported that payment of compensation under Aptt. SI. No. 25 & 37 amounting to Rs. 68,721/- and Rs. 50,794/- was made to the petitioner on 31-3-2007 for the loss sus­tained by him as assessed by the L.A. Col­lector under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. 8. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 did not file any counter-affidavit. However, Mr. Biswas, learned Assistant SG submits that he has no objection if this Court gives a di­rection to the State-respondents to provide the benefits as prescribed in the Scheme, sub­ject to the petitioner is covered by the said Scheme. He also contended that there is a permanent gate, through which the petitioner can easily enter into his land fallen outside the fence, if he has any land. 9. Considering the entire facts and cir­cumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that obviously a citizen like the petitioner has no right to ask the respondents to acquire his land unless the same is required for the public purpose and the respondents are willing to acquire the same. But at the same time if the petitioner is deprived of his land falling outside the border fence, then obviously he can claim some compensation according to law and also under the Scheme, if any, prepared by the State-respondents as well as the Union of India. 10. Mr. Bhattacharji, in his usual fairness, submits that he has no information as to whether the petitioner had received any amount of compensation as assessed by the L.A. Collector under Section 11 of the L.A. Act for the loss sustained by him and now as the Government has framed a Scheme for rehabilitation and if the petitioner is covered by the said Scheme, then he is also entitled to the similar relief as granted by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 169 of 2007 as well as the learned single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2009. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the submission of Mr. Bhattacharji is reasonable. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the submission of Mr. Bhattacharji is reasonable. Thus, the State-respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner and if he is covered by the Scheme for rehabilitation framed by the respondents, then he should be provided the benefits of the scheme. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 are also directed to allow the petitioner to use the gate proximate to his land so that he can utilize his land for agricultural purpose or any other gainful purposes. The petitioner is also directed to furnish a copy of this judgment and order along with a copy of the writ petition to the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department within a period of two weeks from today so that the competent authority can examine the case of the petitioner as to whether he is covered by the aforesaid Scheme for rehabilitation. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents-State preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. 12. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is disposed of. This order is passed as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. Order accordingly.