The State Of Tripura And Others vs Adarini Tea Estate (Te) And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 154 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 3




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                             Review Pet. No.31 of 2022

The State of Tripura and Others.

                                                                         .....Petitioners

                                   _V_E_R_S_U_S_

Adarini Tea Estate (TE) and Others.

                                                                       .....Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Dey, Advocate General.

Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Mr. B. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 09/02/2023 Heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. Also heard S. Bhattacharjee and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This review petition is filed by the State of Tripura and its authorities seeking to recall and modify the common judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.366 of 2013 and other connected matters.

The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

"In the premises aforesaid it is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to review the common judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 so far it relates to WP(C) No.366 of 2013 by way of dismissing the said WP(C) No.366 of 2013 by way of upholding the withdrawal of the exemption order 06.08.2013."

The fact of the case is that the writ appellant (opposite party herein) was granted right to retain land for the purpose of tea plantation by

operation of statutory exemption of land 348.78 acres vide order dated 24th February, 1975 under Section-136(1) and under Section-178 of the TLR&LR Act. However, on 17.10.2015, a report was received from Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura which reveals that an area of land measuring 1.10 acres out of exempted area of Tea garden was utilized for rubber plantation which has got nothing to do with tea plantation, the purpose of which exemption was granted as per law. Consequently, exemption was withdrawn after notice and opportunity.

By the common judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 on similar facts and circumstances, this Court was pleased to dismissed the prayer made in WP(C) No. 366 of 2013, but allowed the prayers made and in the rest of proceedings including WP(C) No.616 of 2015 notwithstanding the similar attending facts and provision of law and hence, the present review petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

In view of the above, this Court draws an inference that the writ petitioners have obtained exemption for tea estate presently by violating the exemption proceedings. Thus, for the reasons indicted above, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the arguments of the writ petitioners and also to grant any relief in favour of the writ petitioners.

Accordingly, the review petition stands allowed. The order of retention and exemption dated 06.08.2013 which has been withdrawn by the respondents and which is impugned in the connected writ petition is upheld. The common judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by this Court at paragraph-21 relating to WP(C) No.366 of 2013 is reviewed and accordingly, set aside. The writ petition being WP(C) No.366 of 2013 stands dismissed upholding the withdrawal orders issued by the government.

However, in view of the submissions made by Mr. S.

Bhattacharnee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that they have not suppressed any facts and the application with regard to seeking exemption

under Section-178 of the TLR&LR Act was made in the year 1962 and thereafter, the exemption has been granted by the Government during the year 1966. Since the petitioners herein, have not way-gated the exemption, the withdrawal cannot be permitted. This Court is not inclined to appreciate the arguments made by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the ignorance of the application made and exemption proceedings granted.

However, the main object of granting the exemption under Section-178 of TLR&LR Act is to promote the Tea Estate and in the event, if the petitioner as on today, if he is still promoting the Tea Estate manufacturing and cultivation and so, it is always open for him to approach the concerned authority with all necessary documents and evidence and on such receipt of the same, they shall consider it in accordance with law.

In terms of above, the review petition stands allowed and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

           JUDGE                             CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




A. Ghosh