JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.12.2015 delivered in Revenue Case No.11/REV/SECY/2015 by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura in exercise of the power under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder: “From close scrutiny of the case records, facts and circumstances, the field verification report is considered as genuine and valid. According to the field report vide No.F.32(7)/DM/W/REV/Harendranagar T.E/2486 dated 30.07.2015, it appears that total area recorded in favour of the tea garden at present is 608.65 acres under mouja D.C. Nagar, whereas retention order was issued vide Notification No.44(TE)61-62, dated 05.11.1975 U/s 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act for an area measuring 644.17 acres. As per report submitted by Sr. Deputy Magistrate, it is revealed that the total vacant land in the tea garden is 10.30 acres under Laxmilunga mouja and 148.51 acres is totally under Rubber plantation. Thus, the total area measuring (148.51+10.30) acres = 158.81 acres is not being utilized by the tea garden authority for tea plantation purpose, for which it was allowed to be retained. Thus, there is no reason to continue such retention of unutilized land any further by the Tea Estate. The Section 178(4) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 states that “where any land, in respect of which exemption has been granted under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Sub-Section (3), cases to be used, or is not within the prescribed time used, for the purpose for which exemption had been granted, the State Government may, after giving the persons affected an opportunity of being heard, withdraw such exemption.” In View of the above circumstances, the retention order from the land measuring 158.81 acres included in the record of the Bargang Tea Estate is hereby withdrawn under provisions of the aforesaid section of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, and the said land be recorded as “khas” in favour of the State Government of Tripura. The DM & Collector, West Tripura District is directed for inclusion of the aforesaid quantum of land as khas in the relevant records accordingly.” [Emphasis added] 3. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is oppressive for two reasons viz. (i) By withdrawing the retention order the respondents cannot convert the entire land as the Government land; and (ii) Even if the petitioner acceded that they have raised the rubber plantation, then also there cannot be any breach of the retention order inasmuch as by the retention order dated 05.11.1975 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] exemption for growing any of the three plantations had been granted and the retention order is general in nature. For that if the rubber plantation is raised, that cannot be treated as the breach of conditions under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act. 4. The state Government, represented by the Commissioner of Revenue, Land Reforms & Taxes, did not mention that retention was permitted only for purpose of raising tea plantation. From a bare reading of the retention order dated 05.11.1975, it would appear that the retention order has been passed, according Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, without making any specific reference to any of three plantations. The retention has been permitted under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act generally. For purpose of reference, the entire text of the said order is extracted hereunder: “The Commissioner of Revenue, Land Reforms & Taxes, Tripura is pleased to order that the Harendranagar T.E is allowed to retain an area of talluki land measuring 260.695 hectors (644.17 acres) belonging to Tea Estate situated at mouja Laxmilunga and Bamutia under Sadar Sub-division U/s 136(1)(f) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. The Commissioner of Revenue, Land Reforms & Taxes is further pleased to exempt under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960, the total area of 260.695 hectors (644.17 acres) from the operation of ceiling provisions of Section 164 of the said Act.” As the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that in para-5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the said retention order has also been extracted. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has in order to defend the retention order submitted that from bare reading of the said order it would appear that a tea garden was in existence before issuance of the retention order on the taluki land as referred in the said order measuring 644.17 acres. The entire area was allowed to be retained by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been permitted to retain the existing tea estate and the necessary vesting has been allowed under Section 136(1) of the TLR & LR Act. But thereafter from a field survey it revealed conclusively that on the substantial part of the retained land, the petitioner has raised rubber plantation and according to the state government that is a serious breach, indulged in by the petitioner. 7. This court has perused the retention order time and again. From the said order it does not appear that the retention order as passed in exercise of power under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act has made any specific reference to any of the plantations as referred under Section 178(1) of the said Act. There is no bone to contend that there was no tea estate, rather or consideration of the existing tea estate the order of retention was passed on 05.11.1975. For purpose of reference, the un-amended provision under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR as existed on 05.11.1975 is extracted hereunder:- “178. (1) The State Government may, on an application made to him in this behalf within three months from the commencement of this Act, exempt from the operation of section 164- (a) any land which is being used for growing tea, coffee or rubber including lands used or required for use or purpose ancillary to , or for the extension of, the cultivation of tea, coffee or rubber to be determined I the prescribed manner. 8. There is no doubt that the same provision of that section has undergone the legislative change by means of Tripura Land Revenue And Land Reforms (Tenth Amendment) Act, 2013 which came into effect from 20.03.2014. By that amendment, the word ‘or rubber’ has been deleted from the said provision. 8. There is no doubt that the same provision of that section has undergone the legislative change by means of Tripura Land Revenue And Land Reforms (Tenth Amendment) Act, 2013 which came into effect from 20.03.2014. By that amendment, the word ‘or rubber’ has been deleted from the said provision. By way of incorporating a proviso which has been provided below sub-section 1(a) of Section 178 of the TLR & LR Act as under: “no tea garden land shall be used for the purpose of rubber plantation.” Further proviso has also been added which reads as under: “Provided further that, any person intending to establish a tea garden shall have to apply to the State Government in the same method as provided under sub-section (1)(a) of section 178 of the Act and the rules made thereunder and acquire and hold land in excess of the ceiling area applicable in section 164A.” There certain other changes have been made but this court is not going to refer those as the same has been considered not much relevant. 9. The issue here is very simple-whether that retention order can be read in such a manner that it can provide the petitioner authority to raise the rubber plantation or not. From the reading of clause-(a) of sub-section 1 of Section 178 of the TLR & LR Act, it would appear that any land which is being used for growing tea or coffee or rubber including the land used or required for use or purpose ancillary to, or for the extension of, the cultivation of tea, coffee or rubber to be determined in the prescribed manner. 10. The petitioner has nowhere stated that at the relevant time there was rubber plantation over that land. The existing plantation is a pre-requisite for having the retention order. From the order what we have gathered is that there existed a tea estate. The petitioner even in the writ petition did not state anything that they raised the rubber plantation before the retention order was given. As such, the retention order has to be deemed for growing tea. However, the State Government, it has to be succinctly stated, does not have any authority to convert the entire land as the khas land. The petitioner even in the writ petition did not state anything that they raised the rubber plantation before the retention order was given. As such, the retention order has to be deemed for growing tea. However, the State Government, it has to be succinctly stated, does not have any authority to convert the entire land as the khas land. Only the surplus part of the land which the petitioner cannot retain, can be converted into the khas land, because exemption under Section 178(1) of the TLR & LR Act is for exemption from the maximum ceiling limit applicable for the ordinary estate. For this reason, that part of the order which provides for that the entire land be recorded as ‘khas’ in favour of the Government stands interfered with and quashed. 11. The competent authority, the Collector of the District, in view of this order shall determine how much amount of the estate can be retained by the petitioner in terms of the Section 164(a) of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. Thereafter, the land beyond ceiling can be declared as the khas land and directed to be recorded in record of right as the Government land. 12. With this observation and directions, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.