Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 396 (TRI)

Bijali Majumder v. State of Tripura

2014-11-26

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. By means of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 28.12.2013 seeking to acquire their land for construction of a Whole Sale Fish Market. In addition to challenging the very basis of acquisition the petitioner has also challenged the invocation of the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the old Act. 2. The stand of the State is that the land is sought to be required for construction of a Whole Sale Fish Market and it is, therefore, necessary to acquire the land and it was also essential to invoke the urgency provisions of the old Act in view of the nature of the acquisition. 3. The petitioners contend that they will be landless and that the construction of Whole Sale Fish Market in Public Private Partnership is not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. 4. In view of the decision which we propose to take it is not necessary to deal with these arguments in detail. As stated by us above, the notification was issued on 28.12.2013. We had called for the files of the case and from a reading of the entire file we find that neither the acquiring authority nor any other department had made out any case for emergency. It was only the Land Acquisition Collector himself who sent a letter to the Joint Secretary that since the funds were available therefore the emergency provisions may be invoked. We are clearly of the view that emergency provision of Section 17 under the old Act could not have been invoked only on the ground that funds are available. Section 17 of the old Act would apply only in cases of urgency and for those purposes which are spelt out in Section 17 itself. 5. In the present case, on perusal of the record, we find that no ground of emergency has been made out and the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Therefore, that part of the notification, dated 28.12.2013, which invoked the provision of Section 17 of the Act is quashed which would mean that the proceedings have to proceed from Section 4 onwards of the old Act. In the meantime, the 'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. In the meantime, the 'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Whether the emergency provisions under the new Act or the old Act would apply is not for us to decide as that matter does not arise in these proceedings. Be that as it may, the State may now proceed with the acquisition in terms of the new Act as far as determination of compensation is concerned and as far as the urgency is concerned, it may take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above discussion, the Section 4 notification insofar it relates to invocation of emergency clause under Section 17 is quashed. The notification, dated 28.12.2013 under Section 6 is also quashed. The State may proceed from the stage of Section 4 notification. 7. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of.