Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura & Others vs Shri Tarun Baidya & Another on 5 February, 2024
Page 1 of 12
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.29/2022
The State of Tripura & others
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
Shri Tarun Baidya & another
.........Respondent(s).
Along with
The State of Tripura & others
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
Shri Birendra Debbarma & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Advocate,
Mr. Pujan Biswas, Advocate,
Mr. C. Mog, Advocate.
Along with
Smt. Mani Bala Debnath
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Sri Ananta Sadhan Jamatia
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Smt. Sinati Reang
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Sri Raj Chandra Jamatia
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Smt. Bhakti Rani Jamatia
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Sri Jarma Sadhan Jamatia
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
Sri Narahari Debbarma
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Date of hearing and judgment : 05th February, 2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Both the writ appeals and the connected writ petitions have
been tagged together as they raise common issues. All the writ petitioners
claimed to have been granted letter of allotment by the TLR and LR
Department in different years though after coming into force of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. One such allotment order dated 23.08.1985
issued by the Collector under Rule 12 of the Tripura Land Revenue and
Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 in Writ Appeal No.29 of
2022 is being extracted hereunder:
APPENDIX 'B'
(See rule 12)
THE TRIPURA LAND REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS
(ALLOTMENT OF LAND) RULES, 1980
NO.94/6 Dated 23/8/85
ALLOTMENT ORDER
Land described in the Schedule below is allotted to Sri Tarun Baidya, Son of Brajendra Kumar Baidya of
village Purba Pepuriakhola, P.O.:Purba Pepuria Khola of District: South Tripura for the purpose of
Agriculture under sub-section (1) of the Section 14 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act,
1960 subject to the following conditions, namely:
1) The land is heritable but not alienable without the written consent of the Collector;
Provided that, the land may be mortgaged to the Government, a co-operative society or a Bank
or such other institution as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State Government.
Explanation:-The expression "bank" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it by the
Explanation under section 109 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
2) The allottee on giving three months notice before the end of the agricultural year and on
payment of all government dues in respect of the allotted land upto the end of the said agricultural year
may surrender being made, the land shall revert to the Government.
3) In case the allottee is a co-operative framing society and the registration of such society is
cancelled within ten years from the date of allotment, the land allotted to such society shall thereupon be
deemed to have been resumed by the Government and the Government shall not be liable to pay any
compensation. Any person holding or retaining possession of such land thereafter shall be deemed to be a
trespasser.
4) In case of waste land allotted for agricultural purpose the allottee shall bring the whole area
under cultivation within five years from the date of allotment.
5) The allottee shall be liable to pay Rs.2.50 (Rupees two point fifty paisa) only as premium either
in lump sum or in annual installments together with interest at two and a half percent, per annum on the
unpaid amount. The premium or the first installment, as the case may be, shall be paid on or
before..........
6) The allottee shall be liable to pay of Rs.11.10 (Rupees Eleven point ten) only as land revenue
and Rs........(Rupees.......) only as cess per year subject to such alteration as may be made under the
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
7) The allottee shall be entitled to plant trees on his land to enjoy the products thereof and to fell,
utilize or dispose of the timber of nay trees on his land.
8) The allottee shall be liable to pay all other taxes for the time being in force or impose in future
under any law.
9) The allotment shall be liable to be cancelled if:-
a) Except in cases failing under clause (4), the land is not used within two years of the date of the
allotment for the purpose for which it is allotted; or
b) The allottee commits a breach of any of the conditions mentions hereinbefore or any of the
provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980; or
c) At any time it is discovered that the allottee was not eligible for this allotment it terms of the
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 or guilty of misrepresentation
at the time of allotment:
Provided that before such cancellation is ordered, a notice is given to allottee to show cause
against cancellation within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice.
10) No compensation shall be payable by the Government on amount of cancellation of any
allotment order or re-entry by the Collector, but if the allottee has built any construction on the land, he
shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to remove the same.
Schedule of Land allotted
Name of Mouja: Purba Pepuria Khola
Plot No.69/viti, 70/viti, 73/1803/viti, 75/lunga, 76/viti, 504/Nal
Area 0.12+0.17+0.12+0.86+0.31+0.87=2.45 acres
Sd/- Illegible
Collector
25/4/1985
2. The allotment letters to different writ petitioners are in similar
language. As per clause (7) in the allotment letter, the allottees were
entitled to plant trees on their land and to enjoy the products thereof and to
fell, utilize or dispose of the timber of the trees on the land. These writ
petitioners claim to have planted teak trees over the allotted land which
became ripe over a period of time for being extracted. However, on refusal
to grant permission by the State Government, the writ petitioners
approached for the first time before this Court in WP(C) No.505 of 2018.
The respondents-State appeared and objected to the extraction of the trees.
The case of the respondents has been taken note of in the order dated
25.03.2021 by which the writ petition was disposed. They contended that
the land allotted to the petitioners formed part of a reserved forest which
was so notified way back in the year 1966. As per the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, no part of the reserved forest could have been
allotted by the State Government without the permission of the Central
Government. The learned Writ Court at that instance found two options
before the Government; either to permit extraction of the trees or to
compensate the petitioners by the current market value that the trees if sold
may fetch. For that purpose, the learned Writ Court directed verification by
a competent Forest Official and assess the approximate age of the trees
standing on the land which the petitioner claims to have planted. The writ
petition WP(C) 505 of 2018 was finally disposed of by order dated
18.11.2021 with the following observation and directions:
"I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties
to the lis.
Annexure-3 to the writ petition makes the cloud clear that the trees were
purchased and planted by the petitioner. From the purchase voucher issued by the Forest
Department on 29.05.1990, it is revealed that the petitioner had purchased 500 nos. of
'Teak Stamps' for Rs. 250/-. If we compare the said purchase voucher with the report of
the Expert Committee constituted by the State-respondents, then, it is found that the
teak trees, according to the members of the Committee, were aged about 25 years. Some
of the trees may be aged about 2-5 years, which might be planted within a period of 2-5
years.
Accordingly, there is no scope to doubt the statement of the petitioner that he
had purchased the trees from the Forest Department and planted the same which were
grown up gradually.
I have given my thoughtful consideration that Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act creates an embargo to cut the trees grown up within the Reserved
Forest. It is also equally true that the land was allotted to the petitioner by the
government and he had planted the trees with the legitimate expectation that one day the
trees would grow and he will sell the trees for his earning. I have also observed that the
learned Single Judge (Akil Kureshi, CJ) by order dated 25.03.2021 held that the State-
respondents shall either permit extraction of the trees or compensate the petitioners by
the current market value that the trees if sold today may fetch.
When this court unhesitently holds that the teak trees which the petitioner
wanted to cut and extract had been purchased and planted by him, then, I have no other
alternative but to follow the observation of the learned Single Judge made in the order
dated 25.03.2021 that the State-respondents shall either permit extraction of the trees, as
sought for by the petitioner, or compensate the petitioner according to the present
market rate.
Accordingly, I direct the respondents either to permit the petitioner to cut and
sale those trees, as sought for by him, or compensate him for those trees which he
wanted to extract. The said direction is to be complied with within a period of 6 (six)
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands
disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed."
3. Similar directions have been issued in the case of the other
writ petitioners with which the State being aggrieved has approached this
Court. In WP(C) No.233 of 2021 from which W.A. No.294 of 2021 arises,
the learned Writ Court directed the respondents to issue necessary
certificate of registration and accord permission to the petitioner for
registration and to extract the trees as per his application within a period of
30 days from the date of receipt of copy the order. In the said case, the
learned Writ Court also observed that the communication submitted by the
SDM, Kamalpur, Dhalai revealed that the land of the petitioner was allotted
prior to 1980, i.e. in the year 1976.
4. In the other connected writ petitions, same grievance has been
raised relating to extraction of teak trees grown on the allotted land under
the TLR and LR Act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder, as permission
for extraction has been denied. For ready reference, the details of all the
connected cases have been enumerated below:
Barred under
Sl. No. Case No. Land Details Land allotted details
notification
Kashari Reserved
Tripura Land Revenue
Forest
Allotted land- 2.45 acres and Land Reforms
Gazette
C.S. Plot no.- 76 (Allotment of Land)
W.A. 29 of 2022 Notification No. F.
Khatian no. 205 of MOUJA- Rules, 1980 & Tripura
State of Tripura v. Tarun 18-4/6/FOR 80/
Purba Pipariakhola, Land Revenue & Land
Taheshil- Barpathari, Reforms Act, 1960 vide
Against judgment no. Dated 03.03.1980
Belonia, under South Tripura allotment no. 94/6
W.P. (C) 505 of 2018 (Annex-10 of WP)
Dist. Dt.- 23.08.1985
per mission
(Annex-5 of WP ) recorded in 11.09.1985
rejected by letter
(Annex-B of WP)
dated 10.01.2018
Allotted land- 4.13 acres
R.S. Plot no.-2533,2534
Khatian no. 435
W.A. 294 of 2021
Mouja- Katalutma, Tehsil-
State of Tripura v.
Salema, Kamalpur, sub- Allotment year- 1976
2. Birendra Debbarma -------
division (Annex-8 of WP)
Against judgment no. WP
Classified as "Lunga and
(C) 233 of 2021
tilla'
(From order dt. 30.09.21 of
WP)
Notification No.
Allotted land- 2.70 acres
7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S. Plot no.- Allotment no. 5/88
II/1447-57
WP(C) 91 of 2022 38,40,41,42,43,44,74 Dt.- 15.01.1988 by
Dated: 23.04.2005
3. Mani Bala Debnath v. Khatian no. 501 SDM
(Annex-7 &8 of
State of Tripura Mouja-Uttar Chellagang , Status of land: Khas
WP) permission
sub- division- Amarpur (Annex-4 of WP)
rejected by letter
(Annex-3 of WP)
dated 31.12.2020
Notification No.
Allotted land- 6 acres Allotment no. 11033/82
7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S. Plot no.- 2108, by SDO
II/1447-57
WP(C) 93 of 2022 2133,2139 Dt.- Petitioner claims
Dated: 23.04.2005
4. Ananta Sadhan Jamatia v. Khatian no. 251 1982
(Annex-6 of WP)
State of Tripura Mouja-Rangkang , sub- (Annex-3 Jote Enquiry
permission
division- Amarpur Report of WP)
rejected by letter
dated 31.12.2020
Notification No.
Allotted land- 4 acres Allotment no. 37/87 7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S./ C.S Plot no.- 624 Dt.- 11.11.87 from II/1447-57
WP(C) 94 of 2022
Khatian no. 170 forest land by SDO Dated: 23.04.2005
5. Sinati Reang v. State of
of MOUJA- Lougang, Sub- (Protected Forest) (Annex-6 of WP)
Tripura
division- Karbook (Annex-3 of WP) permission
rejected by letter
dated 01.06.2021
Notification No.
Allotted land- 6.20 acres
7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S. Plot no- 2105 & 2167
Allotment no. 11032/82 II/1447-57
WP(C) 95 of 2022 Khatian no. 277
As per petitioner 1982 Dated: 23.04.2005
6. Raj Chandra Jamatia v. of MOUJA- Rangkang,
from forest land by (Annex-8 of WP)
State of Tripura Revenue Circle Sub-
(Annex-3 of WP) permission
division- Amarpur
rejected by letter
dated 31.12.2020
Land allotted- 18.06.87 Notification No.
Allotted land- 3.48 acres
(Annex-3 of the WP) 7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S. Plot No.- 2348
Jote Enquiry permitted II/1447-57
WP(C) 96 of 2022 Khatian no. 542
extraction Dated: 23.04.2005
7. Bhakti Rani Jamatia v. of MOUJA- Sonachara,
of (Annex-5 of WP)
State of Tripura Revenue Circle, Sub-
Plot no. 2348 permission
division- Amarpur
Later denied in year rejected by letter
2020 dated 16.07.2020
Allotted land- 2.20 acres As the land was
R.S. Plot no.- 2275 Land allotted no.- allotted after
WP(C) 97 of 2022 Khatian no. 661 11534/83 24.10.1980
8. Jarma Sadhan Jamatia v. of MOUJA- Sonachara, Dt.- 31.01.1984 from (Annexure-6 of
State of Tripura Revenue Circle, Sub- Protected Forest Land WP) permission
division- Amarpur (Annexure-3 of the WP) rejected by Letter
dated 14.09.2020
Notification No.
Allotted land- 4.12 acres
Allotment no. 11262/ 83 7(99)/FOR/FP/P-
R.S. Plot no.- 2486 & 2487
(Annexure-6 of WP) II/1447-57
WP(C) 98 of 2022 Khatian no. 527
Dt.- 11.11.87 from Dated: 23.04.2005
9. Narahari Debbarma v. of MOUJA- East Karbook,
forest land by SDO (Annex-8 of WP)
State of Tripura Revenue Circle- Shilachari,
(Protected Forest) permission
Sub- division- Karbook
rejected by Letter
dated 15.06.2020
5. The common stand of all the writ petitioners are that teak trees
which fall within the meaning of "forest activity" having been planted by
the writ petitioners under proper allotment orders issued by the
Government under TLR and LR Act have over a period of time grown up
and become ripe for being extracted which the respondent-department is
not acceding to.
6. The State has resisted the prayer on the ground that these lands
fall within the meaning of "forest" and no such assignment or allotment
could have been made without prior approval of the Central Government in
terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the
allotments were made without prior approval of the Central Government,
the petitioners cannot claim a legal right to extract these trees grown on the
allotted land in contravention of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and the notifications issued thereunder. In some of the writ
petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that either the
land allotted to them are outside the bounds of the reserved forest or
protected forest or in some cases are protected forest under the Forest Act
of 1927 but are out of the definition of reserved forest under Section 2 of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Even in these allotted plots the
extraction of the teak trees are being resisted or permission is not being
granted on application being made by the writ petitioners. Therefore,
appropriate direction may be issued upon the respondents to allow the
petitioners to extract the teak timber trees or to compensate them in lieu of
the cost of such trees which they may fetch. It is submitted that the
directions of the Writ Court in one of the matters [WP(C) No.505 of 2018]
may, therefore, govern the case of the similarly situated petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the State has, inter alia, submitted that
any allotment letter issued by the Revenue Department containing such a
condition for planting of trees on lands which fall within the meaning of
"forest" under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 can create no valid legal
right in favour of the writ petitioners to extract those trees or to seek
compensation in lieu thereof.
8. However, learned counsel for the State have not been able to
give a categorical answer as to why such an allotment letter issued in
favour of the individual writ petitioners purportedly without prior approval
of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 have neither been rescinded nor recalled. In the
process, the allottees claimed to have grown teak trees which are now ripe
for felling and to be used for forestry purposes. It is also not clear as to why
if such allotments have been allowed to stand for a period ranging more
than 35 to 40 years, the State Government has not considered fit and proper
to approach the Central Government for post facto approval of such
allotment if the plots in question are falling within the description of
"forest" either as a protected forest or a reserved forest or a designated
forest within the meaning of "forest" under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 as understood by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vrs. Union of India and others
reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267. Paragraph-4 of the judgment in the case of
T.N. Godavarman (supra) which explains the meaning of the word "forest"
in terms of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is reproduced hereunder as
it is illuminating on this issue:
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check
further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the
provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary
meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated
as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest
Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include
"forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the
Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood
for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected
therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or
classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of
this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] , Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and
recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995
decided on 29-11-1996] ). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi
Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these
subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position
emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception
of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the
stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to
permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of
this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to
appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the
necessary remedial measures without any further delay."
9. We are also informed by Sri Chandan Lal Das, IFS, Chief
Conservator of Forests, who has appeared to assist the Court in terms of the
order dated 22.01.2024 that a procedure has been prescribed for persons
seeking permission to extract trees through the proper channel. He has
submitted that the writ petitioners may be directed to submit proper
application with supporting documents through proper channel for the
competent authority to take a decision on the question of seeking post facto
approval from the Central Government and upon such approval, to consider
grant of permission to extract trees in case the petitioner(s) fall under the
category within the meaning of "forestry activity" in respect of the trees
which they claim to have planted on their respective plots as understood
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. He also submitted that such an
application can be made through the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer of the
area under which the plot of land falls.
10. The prescription of law under Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, specifically Section 2 thereof as extracted hereunder, provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing any
of the enumerated categories of acts which under Section 2(iii) includes
assignment by way of a lease or otherwise to any private person or to any
authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned,
managed or controlled by the Government, any forest land or any portion
thereof.
Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 reads thus:
"2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for
non-forest purpose: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved
forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall
cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest
purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of
lease of otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any
other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which
have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for
reafforestation.
[Explanation:- For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose" means the
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants,
horticulture crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation,
but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and
management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines,
wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.]"
11. A reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1980
together with the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of T.N.
Godavarman (supra), therefore, makes it clear that the State Government
before making any assignment by way of a lease or otherwise to individual
persons like the writ petitioners of any forest land or any portion thereof
ought to have obtained the prior approval of the Central Government. The
State Government seems to have been sitting idle over the matter despite
being conscious of such allotment letters made in favour of the individual
persons like the writ petitioners way back in the 1980s or even earlier in
some of the cases. Those allotment letters do not stand rescinded or
revoked and petitioners claim to have grown teak trees over the allotted
piece of land in terms of the conditions prescribed in the allotment letters.
12. However, for the purposes of seeking permission for
extraction of such trees, petitioners are required to make an application
complete in all respects through the proper channel as per the prescribed
mode. Such applications are required to be scrutinized by the competent
authority under the Forest Department. Upon such scrutiny, if it is found
that the allotted piece of lands fall within the meaning of "forest" as
understood under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in terms of the
opinion of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) and that
prior approval of the Central Government had not been taken before
making such allotment, the State Government should approach the Central
Government for seeking post facto approval explaining the background
facts and justification for doing so. In case, upon scrutiny, the plot of lands
of individual writ petitioners are found to be beyond the boundary of any
such forest as understood within the meaning of Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 the competent authority would take a decision on granting permission
for extraction of the land and its transit and sale.
13. The petitioners should make such an application within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
competent authority under the respondent-department would process and
scrutinize such application in accordance with law within a period of 12
(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. In case, the
competent authority under the Government of Tripura is satisfied that post
facto approval is required in respect of such claim by individual persons,
they would approach the Central Government for such approval. In case,
such a request is made by the State Government before the Central
Government for approval, the competent authority under the Central
Government would consider it in accordance with law in a time bound
manner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of such application. Needless to say, if the claim of the individual writ
petitioners is declined on any grounds, it would be open for the individual
writ petitioners to raise their grievances in an appropriate proceeding in
accordance with law.
14. These writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of in the
aforesaid manner.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Date: 2024.02.19
15:45:18 +05'30'
