Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 859 (CAL)

State Of West Bengal v. North Frontier Railway

2018-11-29

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2018
JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. 1. The facts relating to filing of the writ petition by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, namely, Avijit Tea Company Private Limited and Rajendra Kanodia its director are as follows:- 2. Great Gopalpur Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'GGTCPL') was the owner of Haihai Pathar Tea Estate falling in Mouja- Haihai Pathar -I, Haihai Pathar-II, and Haihai Pathar-III in the district of Jalpaiguri. 3. After the promulgation of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') the entire land with structures thereon vested in the State. 4. The said GGTCPL under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the said Act was allowed to retain 1029.78 acres of tea garden land in Haihai Pathar-II, and 505.12 acres in Haihai Pathar-III. Out of 1029.78 acres the State Government resumed 52.71 acres and the tea estate was allowed to retain 977.07 acres in Haihai Pathar-II. Thus, the total land allowed to be retained by the tea estate was 1482.14(977.07+505.12) acres. Subsequently, the Government of West Bengal executed two lease deeds in Form-1 (Schedule-F) of the said Act on 25th March, 1976 with effective dates being 20th February, 1967 for 977.07 acres and 24th February, 1967 for 505.12 acres in favour of GGTCPL, both having tenure of 31 years with renewal option. The tea estate comprised in the said land later on came to be known as Rupali Tea Estate. The entire exercise allowing GGTCPL to retain the tea garden and execution of lease are pursuant to an order passed by the State Government under the provision of Section 6(3) of the said Act. 5. By a registered indenture dated 14th October, 1977 the said GGTCPl with the consent of United Bank of India being the mortgagee of the said Rupali Tea Estate transferred the said Rupali Tea Estate with all its assets and liabilities to Kamini Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'KTCPL'). 6. Subsequently, KTCPL by a registered indenture dated 18th April, 1979 sold and/or transferred all the land including plantation garden and factories comprised in the said Rupali Tea Estate to Avijit Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'ATCPL') being the writ petitioner no. 1/ respondent no. 4 in the appeal. 6. Subsequently, KTCPL by a registered indenture dated 18th April, 1979 sold and/or transferred all the land including plantation garden and factories comprised in the said Rupali Tea Estate to Avijit Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'ATCPL') being the writ petitioner no. 1/ respondent no. 4 in the appeal. Pursuant to such transfer ATCPL got its name incorporated in the land revenue record of the said tea garden land by the Collector, Jalpaiguri on 10th June, 1981. The quantum and State of the land transferred to ATCPL is specified in the deed. State Government was not party to any of the transfers inter vivos. 7. Atcpl subsequently got the mortgage released by settling the dues and by making payment thereof to United Bank of India. A memorandum of complete satisfaction of charge with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal was filed by the said United Bank of India on 15th June, 2001. Prior to expiry of the two lease deeds both of which were for thirty years with renewal option, ATCPL applied for renewal in the year 2001, but the execution of renewal deeds are still pending though the competent authority has taken a decision to renew the lease for a lesser area as stated hereinafter. 8. Out of 1482.19 acres two stretches of land measuring about 51.61 acres and 28.09 acres aggregating to 79.70 acres had been requisitioned by the defence and, subsequently, subjected to acquisition under RAIP Case No. 12/86-87 and Case No. 21/86-87 under the provisions of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The issue of determination of compensation in respect of the said 79.70 acres of land has been referred to arbitration and is pending. 9. Apart from the said 79.70 acres of further land aggregating to 172.39 acres according to ACTPL has been forcibly taken over by different authorities in following manner:- North Frontier Railway 117.43 acres Ministry of Defence 31.92 acres Indian Oil Corporation 8.23 acres Bus Stand 7.30 acres Mal Park 2.96 acres BDO Office 2.42 acres Graveyard 2.33 acres Total 172.39 acres 10. On subsequent scrutiny it was found by the ACTPL that actual measurement of land forcibly taken over is 186.68 acres North Frontier Railway 102.95 acres Indian Army 34.07 acres Oil India Ltd. 8.23 acres Adm. On subsequent scrutiny it was found by the ACTPL that actual measurement of land forcibly taken over is 186.68 acres North Frontier Railway 102.95 acres Indian Army 34.07 acres Oil India Ltd. 8.23 acres Adm. Office, Park, Tourist Lodge Bus Stand 7.30 acres Public with RR&R Department 22.91 acres National Highway 2.33 acres Total 186.68 acres 11. In view of such alleged forcible dispossession the tea garden as of now actually comprises of about 1300 acres instead of 1482.19 acres. According to ACTPL the State Government, however, continues to realise lease rent on the basis of 1482.19 acres. 12. As the ACTPL thought fit to bring about more areas of the tea estate under cultivation for commercial viability, the said ACTPL approached the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri being the appellant no. 2 (respondent no. 2 in the writ petition). The ACTPL also requested for demarcation of the areas under the said two leases by making several representations. But the concerned officer did not show any eagerness to depute persons for demarcation of land of the tea estate. 13. In such circumstances, ACTPL and Rajendra Kanodia, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the appeal filed a writ petition being W.P. 15277 (W) of 2003. 14. But the concerned officer did not show any eagerness to depute persons for demarcation of land of the tea estate. 13. In such circumstances, ACTPL and Rajendra Kanodia, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the appeal filed a writ petition being W.P. 15277 (W) of 2003. 14. The prayers in the said writ petition being W.P. 15277 (W) of 2003 are as follows:- (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the land in question more fully described in paragraph 10 hereinabove and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner company within a stipulated time, (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of compensation, in accordance with law, in respect of the land occupied by the State Respondents after complying all the formalities required under the law; (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents each one of them to disburse the portion of the compensation for which the petitioner company is eligible for, which has been received by the State Government from the Central Government against the acquisition and/or occupation of the land of the petitioner made on behalf of the Central Government by State Government; (d) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reduce the lease rent proportionately and determine the rent only in respect of land under actual physical possession of the petitioners; (e) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents each one of them to transmit and/or certify the entire records appertaining to this case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done; (f) A writ in the nature of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from changing the nature and character of the land so long proper acquisition proceeding is started and completed under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act and payment of compensation is made to the petitioner company pursuant to the provisions of the said Act; (g) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (f) above; 15. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 7th August, 2009 which reads as follows:- "The respondent nos. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 7th August, 2009 which reads as follows:- "The respondent nos. 2 and 5 are directed to dispose of the representation dated 21st October, 2002 made by the writ petitioner, a copy whereof is annexure 'P-3' to the writ petition, within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner in accordance with law by a reasoned order." 16. It appears that the said writ petition was not formally disposed of by the order dated 7th August, 2009 and had been dismissed for default by an order dated 8th October, 2015. When the matter again appeared in the list, all interim orders were also vacated. However, prior to passing of that order, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri by a letter dated 3rd July, 2013 fixed a date of hearing incompliance with the order dated 7th August, 2009 passed in the said writ petition. 17. Pursuant to the hearing, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri disposed of the matter by an order dated 6th August, 2013. It will appear from the said order that, the District Magistrate upon considering a survey report prepared by the BL&LRO, Mal after physical verification, it was found that 188.77 acres of land in Mouja- Haihai Pathar T.G.-I, J.L. No.-43,( CS Mouja Haihai Pathar T.G. I,II No. 60 and HaihAI Pathar T.G. III, J.L. No. 59) is not in possession of the tea garden. It also records that the Manager of KTCPL had handed over possession of 3.34 acres of land in Haihai Pathar-II to the J.L.R.O., Mal on 12th December, 1977.ACTPL surrendered 1.04 acres of land in Haihai Pathar-II on 11th December, 1981 and a further area of 71.41 acres being under occupation of army. The order also reveals that 25.47 acres are in un-authorised possession of general public and 20.93 acres surrendered to the Government for park, Super Market, Tourist Lodge, Bus Stand, School, Administrative Buildings and Fire Services. 18. The District Magistrate, thereafter, in his order held that it was known to ACTPL that they were not put into possession of full quantum of the leased out land (that is 1482.14 acres) and such fact is admitted in the sale deed between KTCPL and ATCPL. However, having such knowledge ATCPL continued to pay lease rent on the full quantum of lease land. However, having such knowledge ATCPL continued to pay lease rent on the full quantum of lease land. The District Magistrate, therefore, held that ATCPL having done so with full knowledge should not get any additional benefit for such payment. The District Magistrate, thereafter, ordered for renewal of the lease for the quantum of land possessed by ATCPL as it revealed from the report of BL&LRO and the excess rent paid by ATCPL was directed to be refunded/adjusted against future rent. So far as the extension of area under tea cultivation, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri directed the writ petitioners to apply separately with plot details and documents as required by Clause 6(C) of the lease deed which shall be duly considered. 19. In this factual backdrop ACTPL and Rajendra Kanodia being aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate Jalpaiguri filed the writ petition being W.P. 9863 (W) of 2005 wherefrom the order under appeal emanates. The following prayers were made in the said writ petition:- (a) An order in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners have got every right in respect of 186.68 acres of tea garden land particulars whereof have been given in paragraph 9 of this writ application and cannot be dispossessed by the Government authorities from such land without following due process of law and without payment of compensation; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men and/or subordinates and/or their agents to act and proceed strictly in accordance with law and forebear themselves from giving any effect and/or further effect of the order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri in case No. Misc/HC/02 of 2011-12 and any decision either for not returning the said 186.68 acres of tea garden land to the petitioners or for not payment of any compendation to the petitioners in respect of the said land; (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith rescind and/or recall and/or cancel and/or withdraw the said order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri and to forthwith take steps for return of the said 186.68 acres of tea garden land to the petitioner no. 1 and in the alternative, if such return is not possible, to initiate appropriate acquisition proceedings for determination of compensation amount and payment of the same to the petitioner no. 1 for acquisition of said 186.68 acres of tea garden land; (d) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Government or the appropriate authority of the State Government to forthwith execute and register the renewal lease deeds in respect of the Raja Tea Estate in favour of the petitioner no. 1 for the original area of tea garden lands, that is, 977.07 acres and 505.12 acres upon renewal of leases as executed on 16.3.1976; (e) A writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the State Respondents from renewing the lease deeds of the petitioner no. 1 for any lesser area on the basis of the order dated 6.8.2013 of the District Magistrate; (f) A writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and transmit all records pertaining to this case, before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be rendered by passing orders in terms of prayers (a),(b),(c),(d) and (e) above and also by setting aside and/or quashing the aforementioned order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri in case No. Misc/HC/02 of 2011-12. 20. The writ petition was finally disposed of on contest by a judgment and order dated 24th March, 2017. For convenience, the operative part of the order impugned is set out hereunder:- " In my considered view if the respondent authorities want to retain that 185.08 acres of land of the petitioners total land for those establishments then the respondent authorities should acquire or takeover those lands thereby following due process of law. Without exercise of due process of law nobody can be removed from his property. It is evident that the petitioner company was possessing total lease hold area of 1482.19 acres of approximate land, but out of that 185.08 acres have been illegally occupied by different government and Central Government establishments against which petitioners made repeated representations. Ultimately by virtue of Hon'ble Court order hearing was held and by the impugned order the petitioners' prayer has been turned down. Ultimately by virtue of Hon'ble Court order hearing was held and by the impugned order the petitioners' prayer has been turned down. Therefore, based on the discussions as stated above and also considering the decisions cited above I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in Case No. Misc/HC/02 of 2011-12 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as also in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. In my considered view, it is a fir case to direct the authority to take steps to takeover that portion of land of the petitioners by exercising due process of law after determining the amount of compensation for such portion of lands in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondent authorities are also directed to take steps for renewal of lease in favour of the petitioners for the remaining portion of the lease are, that is, 1300 acres (approximately) in their possession within two weeks thereafter. This writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs." 21. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 24th March, 2017 the State/respondent in the writ petition has filed the instant appeal. 22. The appellant has mainly canvassed the following points:- a.The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. b. The writ petition is barred by the provisions of constructive res judicata. c.The order of the District Magistrate dated 6th August, 2013 is valid and sustainable in law. d. The order under appeal is otherwise erroneous. 23. In support of the first contention the appellants argued that the ATCPL has been enjoying the land comprised in tea garden under two lease deeds dated 20th February, 1967 and 24th February, 1967. The said two lease deeds were statutory leases executed under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the said Act read with Rule 4 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Rules') allowing retention of area under tea garden, factory, work-shop which the State Government felt was required to be retained for the purpose of tea garden. 24. 24. The representation of ATCPL dated 21st October, 2002 and directed to be considered by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in terms of the order dated 7th August, 2009 according to the appellant, only speaks of a request from ATCPL for permission to bring more area under tea cultivation as per Clause 6 (C) of the two lease deeds. The order of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri is incompliance with the said order of this Court wherein the District Magistrate exercised his powers under the provisions of the said Act which is a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1997). It is also the case of the appellant, since the writ petitioners have challenged the order of the District Magistrate, the learned Single Judge did not have any jurisdiction over the matter and the Tenancy Tribunal constituted under the 1997 Act have such jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in passing order thereby holding that this Court has the jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate the writ petition wherein the order of the District Magistrate has been challenged. The appellant contends that the Learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition. 25. It appears from the order of the District Magistrate dated 6th August, 2013 that he has expanded the scope of the order beyond the representation dated 21st October, 2002 which was directed to be considered by this Court vide order dated 7th August, 2009. It appears that the Magistrate traveled beyond the representation which is restricted to the request regarding necessary sanction and according of permission to bring in more area under tea cultivation as per Clause 6(C) of two lease deeds. The Magistrate entered into the dispute regarding the land alleged by ATCPL to have been forcibly occupied by different agencies which in effect reduced the quantum of land actually occupied by ATCPL as also into the aspect of renewal when neither of these issues were the subject matter of the representation dated 21st October, 2002. The Magistrate after having expanding the scope unfortunately did not decide the main issue contained in the representation dated 21st October, 2002 but gave his findings on the issues as aforesaid which were not the subject matter of the representation. The Magistrate after having expanding the scope unfortunately did not decide the main issue contained in the representation dated 21st October, 2002 but gave his findings on the issues as aforesaid which were not the subject matter of the representation. By doing so, the Magistrate has brought into the fold of his order the area of land already resumed including the land which ACTPL claims to have been forcible dispossessed. The moment the District Magistrate has entered into this arena of dispute, the question of acquisition of land and compensation in respect thereof comes in to the fray. It cannot, therefore, be said that the District Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction strictly under the said Act which takes away the jurisdiction of this Court and any dispute relating thereto has to go before the Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT). LRTT is exercising jurisdiction in respect of acts specified in Section 2(r) of LRTT Act. Section 2(r) does not include Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the 2013 Act and, as such, disputes relating to acquisition has to be before this Court and not before LRTT. Infact LRTT does not possess the jurisdiction to decide acquisition related issues. 26. After perusing the prayers made in the writ petition we are of the view that, the Tenancy Tribunal does not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The disputes as to land acquisition, is an aspect which has to be considered by this Court and not the Tribunal. Moreover, the District Magistrate, was adjudicating the issues pursuant to an order passed by this Court contained in the representation dated 21st October, 2002 and was not acting as a competent authority under the said Act though he may be so. That apart, this Court by the order dated 7th August, 2009 directed District Magistrate to consider the representation dated 21st October, 2002 and did not ask the District Magistrate to consider the issue of renewal of the lease, which he could have done while acting as a competent authority under the said act irrespective of the order dated 7th August, 2009 as there was a separate request by ACTPL in 2001 to consider the renewal of lease which as stated above does not figure in the representation dated 21st October, 2002. As the issue of land acquisition became the subject matter of the order of the District Magistrate and, inasmuch as, the Tenancy Tribunal is denuded from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the Tribunal is not empowered to adjudicate the issues arising out of at least the findings contained in the order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri declaring that ACTPL has no right as to the reduced quantum of land form 1482.14 acres to 1300 acres approximately. 27. So far as the point no. 2 of the appellant, that is, constructive res judicata is concerned we find that the prayers in W.P. 15277 (W) of 2003 are completely different from those made in the present writ petition. Even if it is assumed that this Court by the order dated 7th August, 2009 only allowed the prayer to the extent of considering the representation dated 21st October, 2002 and thereby disallowed the other prayers then also the writ petition wherefrom the order impugned emanates is not hit by the provisions analogous to those of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in particular explanation 5 thereof inasmuch as the issues before this Court while adjudicating W.P. 15277(W) of 2003 are not the same as to those in the present writ petition and, therefore, cannot have been decided either expressly or in implied manner when the previous writ petition was disposed of. We, therefore, hold that the writ petition wherefrom the order impugned arises is not hit by the provisions of constructive res judicata. 28. The judgment relied upon by the appellant being AIR1969 Supreme Court 823, AIR 1954 SC340, and 1997(3)SCC261in view of the factual position and discussions made hereinabove has no application to the facts of the instant case though there cannot be any dispute regarding the proposition laid down in the said judgment. So far as the judgment reported in 1999 (4) SCC 396 is concerned, the same related to the impact of Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1955) vis a vis the effect of a final order under Section 6(3) of the said. This aspect is also not an issue in this matter in view of the factual position and the discussions made hereinabove. This aspect is also not an issue in this matter in view of the factual position and the discussions made hereinabove. In the circumstances as aforesaid we hold that the point no. 1 and 2 relating to jurisdiction of this Court and constructive res judicata as urged by the appellant fails and we hold that this Court posses the jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate the issues involved in the writ petition and the same is not hit by the principles of constructive res judicata, wherein the order impugned has been passed. 29. With regard to point no. 3, and 4 urged by the appellant is concerned, we find that the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri has actually attempted to decide two issues in the order dated 6th August, 2013. The first issue decided by the District Magistrate is in respect of the prayer for renewal which was admittedly pending since 2001 and was not disposed of by the District Magistrate though there was no embargo for doing so as the District Magistrate is clothed with the authority to do so under the said Act. The second issue sought to be decided though not actually decided is in respect of the prayer of ATCPL to grant permission for brining in fresh areas of the tea estate under tea cultivation. The second issue is regarding the representation that was directed to be considered by the order dated 7th August, 2009. Even though, the order of the Magistrate records that he has passed the order incompliance with the order of this Court dated 7th August, 2009 but upon perusal of the same, the order can be clearly segregated into two parts as aforesaid. In respect of the first issue decided by the District Magistrate and the Collector, the Magistrate in view of the provisions laid down in the said Act had the authority to decide in usual course. The District Magistrate and Collector was, therefore, exercising a jurisdiction vested on him under the provisions of Section 2(d) read with Section 6(3) of the Act. While doing so, as discussed above he gave findings which relates to the reduction of land thereby bringing into the compass the issue as to land acquisition. The District Magistrate and Collector was, therefore, exercising a jurisdiction vested on him under the provisions of Section 2(d) read with Section 6(3) of the Act. While doing so, as discussed above he gave findings which relates to the reduction of land thereby bringing into the compass the issue as to land acquisition. We, therefore, are of the view that the District Magistrate was competent to pass an order relating to renewal of the lease in usual course without there being any direction from this Court. However, in doing so, the Magistrate have given his findings relating to reduction in the quantum of land which automatically brings the issue as to acquisition of land and compensation. 30. In respect of the second issue the District Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 6(3) has the jurisdiction to decide the issue of granting permission for bringing in further area of the tea garden under tea cultivation. But the District Magistrate did not do so despite several representations before him. In such a situation, this Court directed the District Magistrate to consider such representation dated 21st October, 2002. In respect of this issue the District Magistrate and Collector was exercising his jurisdiction pursuant to the order of the Court though he may be the competent authority otherwise under the said Act in usual course which jurisdiction he failed to exercise prior to the order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by this Court. We find that the first issue decided by the District Magistrate and Collector upon considering the report of the Land Reforms Officer after affording the respondents/writ petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing. The report of the Land Reforms Officer has not been challenged by the respondents/ writ petitioners. On the contrary, such report which gives the details of the reduction in land originally comprised in the tea estate has been in fact accepted by ACTPL, and we find that the factual issues discussed by the District Magistrate in his order dated 6th August, 2013 is based on scrutiny of records including the transfer deeds, the lease which gives a detailed picture of the quantum of land with regard to which the predecessor-in-interest of ACTPL was dispossessed, the possession of which was either made over or surrendered by ATCPL or their predecessor-in-interest. That apart, it appears some portion of the land comprised in the tea garden has been taken away or allowed to be taken away or surrendered during the time when the predecessors-in-interest were operating the tea garden till 1979 as also during the regime of ACTPL as far back in 1981 though exact date are not provided. It is also not clear as to when the land of the tea garden had been taken over by the authorities (respondents/writ petitioners allege that the same had been taken over forcibly) as no specific date for the same has been provided by the writ petitioners/respondents. 31. The Writ Court or the Appellate Forum therefrom are not the fact finding Courts. Unless specific dates are given we are not in a position to make factual enquiries as to when portions of the tea garden were taken over either forcibly as alleged or in usual course. It, however, appears that land has been either surrendered or resumed or taken away forcible or otherwise at least prior to 1981. ACTPL was well aware of the land of which the tea estate was dispossessed at the time they acquired the tea estate in 1979 and, thereafter, voluntarily surrendered land in 1981 ACTPL thereby slept over the issue for over two decades without ventilating such grievance as to forcible dispossession. We, therefore, see no reason to enter into such disputed questions of fact, particularly when it prima facie appears that the portions of the tea garden land had been taken over some 35-36 years ago when the predecessor-in-interest of ATCPL was in occupation and reflected in the deed of 1979. We also feel no necessity to exercise our jurisdiction under Certiorari to call upon the records of alleged taking over of land after about 35-36 years or even more than that when such issue is raised at a so belated stage. ATCPL had come into possession in the year 1979 and had been sitting over its rights till at least 2003 when it filed the writ petition being W.P. 15277 (W) of 2003. The issue of land acquisition or compensation in respect thereof cannot be entertained after lapse of 35-36 years particularly when neither the predecessor-in-interest of ACTPL during their time nor ACTPL though being aware raise such issue immediately after 1979 on coming into possession. The issue of land acquisition or compensation in respect thereof cannot be entertained after lapse of 35-36 years particularly when neither the predecessor-in-interest of ACTPL during their time nor ACTPL though being aware raise such issue immediately after 1979 on coming into possession. The issue of forcible dispossession and/or taking over of the land is raised much beyond reasonable period of time. The conduct of ACTPL in not challenging dispossession as alleged, clearly demonstrate that they have acquiesced their right by passage of time. Dispossession as laid down in Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 has to be challenged within six months from the date of dispossession. ACTPL did not do so or assert their right immediately after 1979. ACTPL has also not explained the long delay or laches on its part to assail the dispossession which they now claim to be treated as acquisition. Considering all these aspects, we, hold that the portion of the impugned order and the order of the Magistrate which relates to the renewal of lease of about 1300 acres of land requires no interference since it is based on appreciation of facts and records which has not been disputed by ACTPL the respondents/writ petitioners. 32. Moreover, if we accept the contention of the respondent/writ petitioners thereby directing the State to initiate acquisition proceedings after 35-36 years and that too when there is a dispute as to whether the land has been taken over either by voluntary act or forcibly by different authorities functioning under different set of acts will not only create a chaos but also disturbs the settled position after 35-36 years. Creation of such chaos or unsettling the position after long years is an issue which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several of its judgments. Even in the judgment reported in 1999(4) SCC 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held against unsettling things after 20 years. We, are, therefore, not inclined to allow the issue of land acquisition and compensation to be opened after a gap of such a long period. Even though the writ petitioners allege it to have been done without due process and claimed compensation for the same. We, are, therefore, not inclined to allow the issue of land acquisition and compensation to be opened after a gap of such a long period. Even though the writ petitioners allege it to have been done without due process and claimed compensation for the same. We held that right, if any, of the writ petitioners/respondents to ask for initiation of land acquisition proceedings and to seek compensation has got extinguished with the long passage of time and by their own voluntary act or for observing silence for so many years. 33. So far as the adjustment of lease rent from future rent as refund is concerned we are also not inclined to make any observation. We, however, feel that ACTPL is entitled to interest on the excess rent paid by them as State has derived benefit out of such sum and ACTPL was on the other hand, deprived of the same being out of pocket of the same. We direct the State to compute the interest on the excess sum so paid at the rate of six per cent per annum in consultation with ACTPL and give adjustment or refund the same. This finding of ours regarding renewal of lease will not, however, prejudice the rights of the parties in any manner regarding the pending proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal save and except to the issues decided herein which may have a bearing to the issues involved in such proceeding. The execution of lease in respect of 1300 acres of land (approximately) by the state in favour of ATCPL will be without prejudice to their respective rights in the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. 34. As we have held after a long passage of time ACTPL, the writ petitioner/respondent should not be allowed to open the issue of land acquisition, the judgments cited by the writ petitioners/respondent being the cases reported in 1994 (5) SCC 239 , 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 596 and AIR 1965 SC 100 (8) does not assist the writ petitioner/respondent. That apart, and in any event the said judgments also does not fit into the fact scenario of the instant case where the issue of land acquisition has been raised at a so belated stage. (1) SCC 596 and AIR 1965 SC 100 (8) does not assist the writ petitioner/respondent. That apart, and in any event the said judgments also does not fit into the fact scenario of the instant case where the issue of land acquisition has been raised at a so belated stage. Since we have already held that the writ petition is maintainable we find no need to discuss as to the judgment reported in 1970 (2) SCC 355 and the other judgments relied upon by the writ petitioner/respondent in details. Though there can be no dispute as to the ratio laid down therein. 35. So far as the second part of the order is concerned, we find that the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri has asked the respondents/writ petitioners to apply separately by giving details of the plots ACTPL intends to bring under tea cultivation. We find that instead of asking the respondents/writ petitioners to apply separately the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri should have asked the respondents/writ petitioners to furnish the details of the land they intended to bring under fresh tea cultivation and decided the issue, particularly when there is a prayer for the permission in the representation dated 21st October, 2002 which was directed to be considered by this Court vide its order dated 7th August, 2009. In respect of this portion of the order we direct the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri to rehear the matter by affording an opportunity to the respondents/ writ petitioners to produce documents to show which part of the land comprised in the tea estate, ACTPL intends to bring under fresh tea cultivation and to pass a reasoned order preferably within a period of three months from date but not later than 1st March, 2019. 36. So far as the direction on the authorities given in the order impugned is concerned by taking step with regard to the portion of land of the respondents/writ petitioners, by exercising due process of law after determining the amount of compensation, we are not agreeable to the same for the reasons as stated hereinabove. We, therefore, set aside that portion of impugned judgment and order. We, however, extend the time to execute the lease deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land under their occupation as of present, that is, 1300 acres (approximately) till 31st January, 2019 subject to the observation as aforesaid. We, therefore, set aside that portion of impugned judgment and order. We, however, extend the time to execute the lease deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land under their occupation as of present, that is, 1300 acres (approximately) till 31st January, 2019 subject to the observation as aforesaid. The state is directed to depute competent officer to execute the lease or leases in favour of the respondent no. 4/writ petitioner by 31st January, 2019. In the event ACTPL refuses to have the lease/leases executed in its favour, the State is free to take steps in accordance with law. 37. The appeal and the applications made hereinabove are disposed of accordingly. There shall, however, no order as to costs.