Sri Dipak Debnath vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 93 Tri

                               Page 1 of 6


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA

                        RSA NO.34 OF 2018

   Sri Dipak Debnath,
   S/o. Lt. Lalmohan Debnath, Resident of Boxanagar, P.S. -
   Kalamchoura, District- Tripura West, At present District-
   Sepahijala, Tripura

                                             ......... Appellant

                    Vs.

   1. The State of Tripura,
   Represented by the Chief Secretary, to the Government of
   Tripura, Agartala.

   2. The Commissioner/Secretary, Government of Tripura,
   Department of Rural Development, Secretariat Building,
   Agartala.

   3.The Executive Officer (BDO), Boxanagar Panchayet
   Samity, Sonamura R.D. Block, Dist- Sepahijala.

   4. The Block Development Officer, Boxanagar R.D.
   Block, Sonamura, District- Sepahijala.

   5. The Executive Engineer, Department of Agricultrue,
   West Tripura, Agartala.

                                             ......Respondents

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. De, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate.

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 27.01.2022.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted

by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-

respondents.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff, appellant herein that he

was the owner and possessor in respect of the subject land.

Out of concern and generosity for public utility for Motor

Vehicle Stand, he has donated the subject land to the

Government and, accordingly, a 'Gift Deed‟ has been executed

vide registered gift deed bearing No.1-00042 dated 08/01/07

in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Tripura

represented by the concerned department for the specific

purpose of utilizing the subject land for motor vehicle stand.

Thereafter, when the State has issued a notification for

establishing a market yard in the subject land in violation of

the very purpose of 'Gift Deed‟, the plaintiff has issued a notice

under Section 80(1) of C.P.C. and thereafter filed a suit before

the Trial Court vide T.S. 167 of 2012 before the learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1. The defendants therein

have filed their written statement before the Trial Court and at

Para-12 of the written statement, the defendants have

categorically stated thus:-

"However, the statements as made by the plaintiff that the suit land would be used for development of Boxanagar market are not true and correct. It has already been stated that though the project of development of Boxangar market was sanctioned, but subsequently as per decision of the Boxanagar Panchayet Samity the said project was transferred to the Veluarchar Market instead of Boxanagar market"

3. The defendants contended before the Trial Court that

the subject land which is taken on gift will be utilized for the

purpose of Motor Vehicle Stand and it is not correct to say as

stated by the plaintiff that the State is deviating from the

contention in the gift deed and that further they are

constructing a market in the subject land. Thus, they prayed to

dismiss the suit as the same is premature and it is filed under

apprehension.

4. The Trial Court having given weightage to the case of

the defendant-State dismissed the suit by order and judgment

dated 09.06.2014.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred an

appeal before the Lower Appellate Court vide Title Appeal

No.38 of 2014 before the learned Addl. District Judge, West

Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4 and the same contentions were

advanced. After hearing the both sides, the Lower Appellate

Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and has

appreciated the arguments of the State and dismissed the

appeal of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated

18.07.2018 and 10.08.2018.

6. Further aggrieved by both the concurrent orders, the

plaintiff has preferred the present RSA.

7. In continuation of the arguments advanced by the

counsels before the Trial Court and Appellate Court, Mr. De,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant further represented

that as on today, the said land is vacant and there is a

reasonable apprehension that the State Government is

proceeding to allot the subject land for construction of market

yard by defeating the very essence of the 'Gift Deed‟.

8. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate

upon instructions and on perusing the record fairly submits

before this Court that there is no intention of the Government

for violating the essence of the 'Gift Deed‟ that is for the

purpose for which the subject land has been taken by the

State-Government by way of a gift from the donor/plaintiff

herein. Learned Government Advocate further submits that as

on today, the said land is vacant and the same would be

utilized for Motor Vehicle Stand as and when it is required.

9. In reply, Mr. De, learned counsel for the appellant

further contended that the purpose of granting the 'Gift Deed‟

in favour of the respondents gets defeated since the same is

not utilized for opening of motor vehicle stand and it is still

lying vacant.

10. On perusal of the gift deed as well as on perusal of the

orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and

after hearing the argument of the learned Government

Advocate, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation

of the said 'Gift Deed‟ and there is no construction activity in

the subject land. Further the subject land for which the said

'Gift Deed‟ has been executed is still lying vacant. Since the

'Gift Deed‟ is silent on the aspect of the any limitation and the

same is unconditional, so imposing condition to construct Motor

Vehicle Stand in a stipulated time is not within the purview of

this Court which amounts to amending the 'Gift Deed‟ by this

Court, since the same is not subject matter.

11. In view of the fact that the land is vacant and it would

be only utilized for the purpose of Motor Vehicle Stand, this

Court for the present confirms the orders passed by the Trial

Court and the Appellate Court in so far as not cancelling the

„Gift Deed‟ as prayed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, no relief is

granted. However, in view of the submission made by the

respondent-State, all through before the Court that the suit

and appeals filed by the plaintiff-donor is only under

apprehension and the same are premature, this Court comes to

the conclusion that the state who is the beneficiary of the 'Gift

Deed‟ will not deviate from its obligation under which it has

obtained the gift with regard to the subject property. In the

event if there is any deviation from the 'Gift Deed‟ by the

State-respondents, it is always upon the plaintiff to take steps

in accordance with law.

12. With the above mentioned observation, this instant

second appeal stands disposed of.

JUDGE

suhanjit