Tripura High Court
The Silkote Tea Company Ltd vs The State Of Tripura on 12 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 31 of 2023
The Silkote Tea Company Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the companies Act,
Having its Registered Office at 166, Jessor Road, Kolkata-700055.
.................Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Secretariat, Capital complex
P.O.- Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Capital Complex,
P.O.- Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The District Magistrate and Collector,
P.O. Gaurnagar, Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura.
4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kailasahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura.
................Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DK Biswas, Sr. Advocate
Mr. GK Nama, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 08.07.2024.
Date of pronouncement
of Judgment & Order : 12.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order
Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. GK Nama, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SS Dey, learned Advocate General
assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State respondents. Mr. Khohinoor N.
Bhattacharya, learned G.A. is also present on behalf of the State.
[2] The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or similar order and also for a writ of mandamus or
direction in respect of the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Revenue Secretary in
Revenue case No.07/Rev/Secy/2020 and the memorandum dated 19.02.2021 issued by
respondent No.4(SDM).
[3] The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner claimed that he is the
owner of Tea Garden named "Hiracherra Tea Estate" in Unakoti District. According to the
petitioner the tea garden comprises of 682.94 acre land used for tea cultivation and
connected other purposes. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner company is
registered in the year 1917 under the Companies Act, having its registered office in Kolkata.
It is further contended that the petitioner company is a vibrant company with more than
2,300 members (share holders).
[4] While the matter stood thus, Government of Tripura issued Gazette
notification vide No.F.39(93)-Rev/62 dated 22nd March, 1963 in notifying that with regard to
all estates situated in the then Kailashahar Sub-division and under the then Puranrajbari
Police Station of Belonia Sub-Division , all rights, title and interest of every intermediary in
such estates shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrance w.e.f 15th April, 1963.
In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted an application in the year 1963 under section
178(1) and 136 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (TLR & LR Act
for short) for exemption and retention of the Tea Garden Land. Thereafter, the Revenue
authority passed the "retention" order dated 15.05.1980 under section 136 of the Act, for
land measuring 682.94 acres in accordance with law. By initiating revenue proceeding vide
07/REV/Secy/2020 dated 05.12.2020, direction was issued to record the subject-land in
question as Government „Khas‟ land. In consequent thereto, on 19.02.2021, SDM,
Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura (respondent herein) by issuing a memorandum dated
19.02.2021 converted a portion of land belonged to the petitioner company into Govt. khas
land and informed the petitioner company not to undertake any kind of activities without
prior permission of the competent authority in Revenue Department.
[5] On earlier occasion, the petitioner company approached this Court by filing
a writ petition being WP(C) 274 of 2022 but, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner as
per order dated 05.12.2022 of this Court with a liberty to file afresh. Thereafter, the
petitioner have preferred this present writ petition seeking following reliefs:
"i. Issue rule asking the Respondents as to why the order dated 5-12-2020 passed by the
Revenue Secretary (Respondent No.2) in case No. 07/Rev/Secy/2020 and the
Memorandum dated 19-2-2021 issued by the respondent No.4 should not be declared
illegal, malafide and without authority, and thereafter to quash both the said order and the
Memorandum;
ii. Issue rule directing to take all possible steps to restore the position of the Tea Garden as
it was on 5-12-2020;
iii. Cost of the proceeding;
iv. Pass order directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the land
mentioned in the impugned order.
v. Pass any other writ or order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for ends of
justice........"
[6] Mr. DK Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that as per law, order of "exemption" under section 178(1) of the Act is granted in respect of
land in excess of ceiling limit. On the other hand, Ceiling limit/excess land is determined in
accordance with the provisions contained in section 164A of the Act. He, therefore, submits
that it is clear that before determining the ceiling limit, order of exemption under section
178(1) of the Act cannot be granted. Order dated 15.05.1980 shows that ceiling proceeding
had not been initiated in respect of petitioner's Tea Garden Land. Till date no proceeding has
been initiated for determination of ceiling limit, yet the impugned order has been passed
ignoring statutory provision. It is further contended that under the law, Government can take
only the surplus land if found available beyond the ceiling limit.
[7] He further contends that ignoring the above mentioned statutory provisions
the Respondent No.2 (Revenue Secretary) most illegally, arbitrarily passed the order dated
05.12.2020 in revenue proceeding No.07/Rev/Secy/2020 directing to record the land owned
by the petitioner as Government "Khas" land. He contends that petitioner is an intermediary
and raiyat under TLR & LR Act and the land is under exemption. He, therefore, urges this
Court to set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 and consequential memorandum
dated 19.02.2021 issued by the respondent(s).
[8] Mr. SS Dey, learned Advocate General for the State respondents submits
that as per the gazette notification vide No. F.39(93)-REV/62 published on 22.03.1963, in
the Tripura Gazette, the estate in question, situated within the then Kailasahar Sub Division
now the Unakoti District was already vested in the Government of Tripura free from all
encumbrances. Consequently, the entire land claimed by the writ petitioner falling within
Unakoti District as of date, in any view of the matter is a Govt. Khas land.
[9] He further submits that there is no averment in the writ petition with regard
to that gazette notification and the same is unchallenged. It is further contended that the
petitioner have concealed the real facts and made untrue statements. Initially, the petitioner
company vide application dated 12.09.1963 applied for the exemption from the operation of
Section 164 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and also prayed for retention of the ceiling surplus
land. However, the same was rejected and no retention order was issued in his favour and
further vide order dated 04.12.1975, the Revenue Department, Government of Tripura,
directed the Collector to take over the land after observing all formalities.
[10] He further contends that the petitioner company again made a prayer to
review the aforesaid order dated 04.12.1975 by an application dated 13.10.1977 and finally,
order dated 15.05.1980 are passed.
[11] It is further contended that at the time of passing the said order, he was
directed to file a separate application under Section 178 for exemption. But, no such
application was filed by the petitioner company. The revenue proceeding vide
07/REV/Secy/2020 was instituted not to withdraw any exemption order. As per the report of
the DM & Collector Unakoti District, it was found that whole tea garden (except plot no.514
& 547 with an area of 78.7) was degraded for a long time and no tea plantation activities
was carried on by the petitioner company. Therefore, in the light of 1963 gazette, the 682.94
acres (683 acres approx) stands in the name of Government of Tripura as the petitioner
company are not owner of the land and no documents are filed in support of their argument.
He prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
[12] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
[13] For the purpose of reference, some relevant provisions laid down in
Sections 99, 133, 134, 136, 137, 164 & 178(4) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land
Reforms Act, 1960 (for short TLR & LR Act) are extracted hereunder:
"99. Rights of raiyats.-(1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that subject to
the other provisions of this Act,-
(a) the rights of a raiyat in his land shall be permanent, heritable and transferable;
(b) the raiyat shall be entitled by himself, his servants, under-raiyats, agents or
other representatives to erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks or make other
improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its convenient or profitable
use;
(c) the raiyat is entitled to plant trees on his land, to enjoy the products thereof
and to fell, utilise or dispose of the timber of any trees on his land.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall entitle a raiyat to use his land to the detriment of any
adjoining land which is not his or in contravention of the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force applicable to such lands.**********************************
133. Definitions.- In this Part,---
(a) "estate" means lands included under one entry in any of the general registers of
revenue-paying and revenue-free lands and includes--
(i) revenue-free lands not entered in any register, and
(ii) a part of or a share in an estate;
(b) "homestead" means a dwelling house together with any courtyard, compound, garden,
or out-house and includes any out-buildings used for purposes connected with agriculture
and any family graveyard, library, office, guest-house, grain store, latrines, boundary walls,
tanks, wells or places of worship appertaining to such dwelling house;
(c) "intermediary" means a person who holds in an estate the right, title or interest of a
talukdar and includes---
(i) a person who holds land either revenue-free or at a concessional rate, and
(ii) a tenure holder;
(d) "tenant" means a person who cultivates or holds the land of an intermediary under an
agreement, express or implied, on condition of paying therefore rent in cash or in kind or
delivering a share of the produce and includes a person who cultivates or holds land of and
intermediary under the system generally known as "bhag", "adhi" or "barga"; and the
term "sub-tenant" shall be construed accordingly;
(e) "tenure holder" means a person who has acquired from an intermediary the right to hold
lands for the purpose of collecting rents or bringing them under cultivation by establishing
tenants thereon*****************************************************
134. Notification vesting estates in the State.-(1) As soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, the [State Government] may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare that, with effect from the date specified in the notification (herein-after
referred to as the vesting date), all estates situated in any area or areas and all rights, title
and interest of every intermediary in such estates shall vest in the Government free from all
encumbrances.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall also be published in such other
manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The publication of notification in the manner provided in sub-section (1) and
(2) shall be conclusive evidence of the notice of declaration to the intermediaries whose
interests are affected by such notification*****************************
136. Rights of intermediary to certain lands.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sections 134 and 135,an intermediary shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) be
entitled to retain with effect from the vesting date,--
(a) homesteads, buildings and structures together with the appurtenant thereto in the
possession of the intermediary other than buildings vested in the Government under section
135;
(b) lands under the personal cultivation of the intermediary;
(c) lands in which permanent rights have not already accrued to a tenant under any custom,
agreement or law and which have been leased by an intermediary who, both at the
commencement of the lease and on the vesting date, was a person under disability;
(d) lands held by the intermediary as mortgagor which are subject to usufructuary mortage
and are under the personal cultivation of the mortgage;
(e) lands comprised in orchards or used for the purpose of live-stock breeding, poultry,
farming or dairy farming, which are in the occupation of the intermediary;
(f) so much of the lands comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop as in the
opinion of the State Government is required for such tea garden, mill, factory or workshop.
(2) An intermediary who is entitled to retain possession of any land under sub-section(1)
shall hold such land directly under the Government from the vesting date as a raiyat thereof
[or as a non-agricultural tenant thereof, as the case may be] and be liable to pay therefor
land revenue at full rate applicable to similar lands in the locality*****************
137. Collector to take charge of estates, etc., vested in the Government.- (1) The
Collector shall take charge of estates and interests of intermediaries which vest in the
Government under section 135.
(2) For the purpose aforesaid, the Collector may, by written order served in the
prescribe manner, require any intermediary or other person in possession of any such estate
or interest to give up such possession by a date to be specified in the order (which shall not
be earlier than sixty days from the date of service of the order) to deliver by that date any
documents, registers, or records, connected with the management of such estate or interest
which are in his custody to furnish a statement in the prescribed form in respect of such
estate or interest.
(3) The Collector or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf may take
such steps or use such force as may be necessary to enforce compliance with the order and
may also enter any building or place for the purpose of taking possession of the documents,
registers or records referred to in sub-section(2),
(4) An intermediary shall be entitled to make inspection of any documents,
registers or records which have been delivered to or taken possession of by the collector, to
make notes there from or to have certified copies thereof granted to him. No fees shall be
charged for making inspection or for making notes, but fees may be charged, according to
the prescribed scale, for the grant of certified copies.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Collector to take
possession of--
(a) any land or of any right of an intermediary therein, which may be retained by
the intermediary under section 136, or
(b) any religious institution or any building connected therewith.************
164. Ceiling on holdings.- On and form the 24th January, 1971 no person shall, whether as
a raiyat or as an underraiyat or as a mortgage in possession or otherwise or partly in one
capacity and partly in another, hold in the aggregate any land in excess of the ceiling limit
applicable to him under section 164A.
[164A. Ceiling limit.- (1) The ceiling limit shall be---
(a) in the case of an adult unmarried person, two standard hectares;
(b) in the case of a person who is the sole surviving member of a family, two
standard hectares;
(c) in the case of a person having a family consisting of two or more but not more
than five members, four standard hectares;
(d) in the case of a person having a family consisting of more than five members,
four standard hectares plus 0.60 standard hectare for each member in excess of five so,
however, that the total ceiling limit for such a person shall not in any case exceed 7.20
standard hectares.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where in the family of
a person there are more members than one, owing land, the ceiling limit for that person
together with the ceiling limit of all the members of the family, shall not in any case
exceed---
(a) where the member of members of such family does not exceed five, four
standard hectares;
(b) where such member exceeds five, four standard hectares plus 0.60 standard
hectares for each member in excess of five so, however, that the aggregate of the ceiling
limit shall not in any case exceed 7.20 standard hectares.
(3) For the purpose of sub-section (2), all the land owned individually by the
members of the family or jointly by some or all of the members of the family shall be
deemed to be owned by the members in the family.
(4) In determining the extent of land owned by a person having a family or the
sole. surviving member of a family or an adult unmarried person, the share of such person
or sole surviving member or such adult unmarried person, as the case may be, in the lands
owned by a cooperative society, company, co-operative farming society, a Hindu undivided
family or a firm shall be taken into account.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the share of a person having a
family or the sole surviving member of a family or an adult unmarried person in the lands
owned by a co-operative society, company, co-operative farming society, a Hindu
undivided family or a farm shall be deemed to be the extent of land which could be allotted
to him, had such lands divided or partitioned, as the case may be.
(5) The lands owned by a trust or endowment, other than a public nature, shall be
deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiaries under the trust or endowment and each such
beneficiary shall be deemed to be a person holding land under this Act to the extent of the
share of his beneficial interest in the said trust or endowment.
(6) The ceiling limit for a co-operative society, company, co-operative farming
society, a Hindu undivided family or a firm, as the case may be, shall not exceed the sum
total of the ceiling limits of each member of such co-operative society, company, co-
operative farming society, a Hindu undivided family or each partner of such firm.
Explanation.--For the purpose of determining the ceiling limit of each member
referred to in this sub-section, any land held separately by a person who is a member of a
cooperative society, company, co-operative farming society or a Hindu individed family or
a partner of a firm shall be deducted from the ceiling limit referred to in sub-sections (1) to
(5) so that the sum total of the area of land held by such person whether as such member or
partner or individually or as a member of a family may not in any case exceed the ceiling
limit applicable to him under these sub-sections.*****************************
178. Power to exempt, etc.-******(4) Where any land, in respect of which exemption has
been granted under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), ceases 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........... "
[14] During the course of argument, learned senior counsel Mr. DK Biswas
relied on a book titled as „A Study Of The Land System of Tripura‟ directed by one J.N. Das,
Law Research Institute, Eastern Region, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. The contents of the
said book as referred by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is extracted as
under:
".....CHAPTER V
ABOLITION OF INTERMEDIARIES
Who are intermediaries
Abolition of intermediaries had to be the first step in the process of
implementation of the new land law of Tripura, namely, the Tripura Land Revenue and
Land Reforms Act of 1960, because the raiyat who was the central figure in the new land-
law, could not be brougth into direct contact with the State without removing the per-
vasive intermediary wall that stood between them. In Tripura, during the ex-Ruler's regime,
almost all lands were held by Talukdars under the State, and the Tuluk- dars engaged
tenants to cultivate their lands. Talukdars, we have seen, were of three categories, namely,
Kayemi, Taskhichi and Nishkar. Taken together, their total number came to 29,215.
'Intermediary' has been defined as "a person who holds in an estate the right, title
or interest of talukdar" and includes a 'tenure holder who is, in practice, a Dar- Talukdar.
Thus according to the provisions of the Act, all the three classes of Talukdars mentioned
above and the class of Dar-Talukdar come under purview of the definition of
"intermediary". So, abolition of intermediaries involved abolition of all these classes.
Peculiar position of tea-gardens
Now, a peculiar situation arose in respect of the tea- gardens, most of which held
lands under Taskhichi lease. In view of holding this type of lease, the tea-garden- owners
were called Talukdars, and being Talukdars, they were, by definition, intermediaries. So
their rights had to be acquired; and these were in fact acquired under section 134 of the
TLR & LR Act 1960.
General notification for acquisition
In this connection, it may be noted that the noti- fication for acquisition of
intermediary rights under section 134 is not required to mention the names of the estates
and their owners. The notification is required simply to declare that, with effect from a
specified date, all estates situated in any area and all rights, title and interest of every
intermediary in such estates shall vest in the Government. So when such a general
notification was issued in a sub-division, all Taluks including tea-estates, vested in the State
Government. ******************
As Talukdars tea-gardens vested in Government
The issue of vesting notification in Tripura put the tea- estates in an awkward
situation. If really the tea-estates had been taken over, then, apart from the problem of huge
compensation, the problem of management would have been colossal. It could not have
been the intention of the Government to acquire the tea- estates as such, but the definition
of 'intermediary' naturally led to this situation. The tea-gardens had to get rid of the
designation of "Talukdar" which, in Tripura, was identical with 'intermediary'. They must
no longer remain intermediaries but must become raiyats, and as raiyats they could keep
their gardens surrendering only the surplus. So the Government took recourse to the
"retention" clause in Section 136 (f) under which an intermediary was entitled to retain so
much of the lands comprised in a tea-garden as in the opinion of the State Government was
required for such tea-garden. ........"
The above book is not an Act or Rules or any gazette notification. It is only
a research study report by a third party and on the strength of the same, this matter cannot be
adjudicated as it has no statutory recognition.
[15] The petitioner, Silkote Tea Co. Ltd. claim as the owner of Tea Garden
named „Hiracherra Tea Estate‟ and according to them, it is 105 year old company registered
in the year 1917. The petitioner-company have contended that they are in possession of tea-
estate and are cultivating tea since its inception. The Tripura Land Revenue and Land
Reforms Act, 1960 (in short TLR & LR Act) came into force and on perusal of record, it is
seen that on 22.03.1963, a gazette notification vide No. F.39(93)-REV/62 was published in
the Tripura Gazette, which is extracted hereunder for appreciation of fact:
"....In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 134 of the
Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (43 of 1960) the Administrator is
pleased to declare that with effort from the 15th April, 1963 all estates situated in
Kailashahar Sub-division and under Puranrajbari Police Station of Belonia Sub Division
and all rights, title and interest of every intermediary in such estates shall vest in the
Government free from all encumbrance......"
[16] In support of the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has not placed
on record that Silkote Tea Co. Ltd. is the lawful owner of the subject-land in question which
is about 726.03 acres (however, the present dispute is only with regard to 682.94 acres and
remaining 43.09 acres were allotted by the government to the landless families much prior to
1980, which is evident from the record).
[17] Record reveals that on 04.12.1975, the Revenue Department, Government
of Tripura, directed the Collector, North Tripura District to take action under Section 137 of
the TLR & LR Act to take over the possession of the land after observing all formalities. The
relevant contents of the said order is quoted herein-below:
"......O R D E R
The representative of the Hirachhara Tea Estate also called Silkot Tea Estate run
by the Silkot Tea Co. Ltd. did not turn up even after repeated summons for appearance.
Sarvashri R. Sankaranarayanan, Director of Land Records & Settlement, T.N. Chakraborty,
Assistant Director of Surveys & Land Records, A.L. Majumder, Asst. Survey Officer,
Kailasahar, J.P. Gupta, Chief Labour Officer, M.K. Sinha, Labour Officer and A.
Mukherjee, Industrial Promotion Officer represented the Government side.
2. Shri Gupta of the Tea Association of India and Shri Indra Kumar Roy of Tripura Cha
Majdur Union also appeared on being requested for to present themselves at the time of
hearing.
3. The Manager of the Tea Estate and the Managing Director of the Company were
summoned 5 (five) times and inspite of this, they did not appear on any of the fixed dates of
hearing nor did they file any application. This indicates that the Management of the Tea
Garden are not interested in obtaining retention order under section 136(1)
(f). ******************************************************************
8. I am, therefore, inclined to think that no retention order need be issued in favour of the
intermediary of the Garden. The Collector, North District may take action u/s 137 to take
over possession of the land after observing connected formalities.
Orders may issue accordingly."
[18] It is also seen from record that at many places the subject-land is referred to
as Hiracherra Tea Estate and in some places Silkote Tea Company Ltd. It is also observed
from record that for Silkote Tea Co. Ltd. its Directors Mrs. Rumena Rahman and K.S.
Dhindsa sent a letter on 13.10.1977 addressed to the Revenue Commissioner, Government
of Tripura indicating that they have taken over the control over the garden and the possession
from the previous Directors but, nowhere in the entire record, the petitioner have established
that Silkote Tea Company Ltd./ the petitioner herein is the owner of the subject-land
measuring 682.94 acres (approximately 683 acres). The petitioner have not pleaded in the
affidavit and not placed any document on the strength of which the petitioner can claim
ownership and also possession.
[19] In the above letter dated 13.10.1977, it is also indicated that previous owner
could not run the tea-estate because of paucity of funds. It was further indicated that they
would conduct a survey of tea-estate and would apply proper plans in a proper form as per
the procedure. In the said letter, it was prayed to review the order dated 04.12.1975 in the
matter of retention under Section 136(1)(f) and petition Section 178(1) of TLR & LR Act,
1960 in respect of Hiracherra Tea-Estate.
[20] The order passed on 04.12.1975 by the Commissioner of Revenue and
Secretary, Government of Tripura is the one denying the request of Hiracherra Tea-Estate
seeking retention. The petitioner have not placed on record nor contended in the affidavit
with regard to initiation of any legal proceedings challenging the order dated 04.12.1975.
[21] Therefore, it has to be reasonably presumed that the order passed by the
Commissioner of Revenue etc. & Secretary dated 04.12.1975 attained finality. Insofar as the
letter dated 13.10.1977 addressed by the Directors of Silkote Tea Co. Ltd. to the Revenue
Commissioner with a prayer to review the order dated 04.12.1975 is concerned, it has no
legal weightage nor recognized under the statute.
[22] The petitioner has not challenged as cited supra the gazette notification
dated 22.03.1963 and also the order dated 04.12.1975 of the Commissioner of Revenue etc.
& Secretary to Govt. of Tripura. Nowhere in the pleadings, the petitioner could establish his
ownership right upon the 682.94 acres of land and also his locus standi. No documents are
filed in support of their claim. Nowhere in the pleadings, the petitioner made any attempt to
say that the petitioner is an intermediary or raiyati under TLR & LR Act. Except reiterating
the sections of the Act and discussing and interpreting the same, there is no specific assertion
made by the petitioner about his title & locus standi.
[23] It reveals from record that on 03.10.2020, under the proceeding vide No.
07/Rev/Secy/2020, it was observed by the Secretary, Revenue Department that a report had
been received from the DM & Collector, Unakoti District informing that the Tea Estate was
not functioning. Thereafter, on 05.12.2020, the following order was passed by the
respondent Revenue Department:
"......Muktipada Paul, Dy Collector is present on behalf of the DM & Collector of Unakoti.
Advocate Gautam Nama is present on behalf of the Silkote Tea Company Ltd. (Hirachara
Tea Estate).
Inspite of giving repeated opportunity to Silkote Tea Company Ltd the self
proclaimed representative Md. Mossabbir Ali could not prove his locus standi in this case.
1. It is clear that the Silkote Tea Company Ltd has been "strike off" status as per
ROC website with last AGM dated 27/09/2016
2. The DIN number of the self proclaimed representative is also inactive.
3. The power of attorney given was dated 26/05/2014 and since the company status
is strike off with last AGM dated 27/09/2016 as recorded in the website of ROC,
it would not be valid.
In the last 2(two) hearings dated 17.10.2020 & 07.11.2020 also he was given
ample opportunity to prove why this Court should consider him as the appropriate party to
represent Silkote Tea Company Ltd, but he has made no attempts in this direction. In their
latest prayer, they have submitted one fresh power of attorney dated 04/12/2020 in favour
Mossabbir Ali, the self proclaimed representative, by one MD, Mokarram Khan, the
Managing Director signed as Sunshine Tea Processing Company Ltd. However, there is a
seal of Silkote Tea Company Ltd. also embossed. Mossabbir Ali has also submitted his
payment for activation of DIN No. and Case No. 1129/2020 filed with the ROC but no
further details have been submitted in writing. In his previously submitted written statement
there were no details regarding the locus standi to represent Sikote Tea Company. But the
Company itself is inactive as per status "strike off" in ROC website. "Strike off" status
indicates the following circumstances.
When a company has failed to commence its business within one year of its
incorporation.
When a company is not actively carrying on any business or operation for a
period of two immediately preceding financial years and has not made any application
within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company"
On being enquired, if the engaged counsel of Silkote Tea Company, Shri Gautam
Nama could submit the case details of case no 1129/2020. that are filed with NCLT either
verbally or in writing, he asked for at least 7 days. This time limit is unreasonable to this
Court. It appears that party is just using delay tactics.
Also, as per report of the DM & Collector Unakoti District, at present whole tea
garden (except plot no. 514 & 547 with an area of 78.07 acres) is degraded for long and no
plantation activities except two plots where some tea plantation activities is reported. It is a
serious breach of the terms and conditions of Retention Order passed in favour of the
Concerned Tea Estate Company. Moreover, an amount of Rs 10,38,962/- as matching share
of CPF remained unrealised as the company itself does not exist physically. No initiatives
were taken up to issue weekly Ration Cards from the side of the Company.
The said tea garden is now in a closure condition and not running well since 15
years and there is total failure of all garden activities. The labourers of the said tea garden
have been ignored and they have to suffer a lot as no labour welfare activities are taken up
nor has any tea garden/grower commitment has been followed, minimum wages are not not
given, weekly Ration Card are also not issued. Garden condition is deteriorating. Many of
the tea garden workers are on verge of starvation.
From the examination of all facts and circumstances, and after detailed scrutiny
of the records available, it is revealed that 604.87 acres of land is lying unutilized since
long time from tea plantation by the recorded Tea Estate owners to whom retention order
was favoured by the State Government. Thus, the very purpose of allowing tea estate
owners to retain land in excess of ceiling limits has been defeated and even the remaining
78.07 acre where tea garden is exists are also not maintained by the management of the
company as the company itself does not exist physically.
This Court is of the considered opinion that since the owners are not using the
said land for the purpose for which it was allowed to be retain and have instead left it
unutilized, there is no reason to continue with retention of the said land any further. Hence,
the retention order vide Revenue Department No. 28(Tea Estate) of 1962-63, U/s 136(i)(f)
& 178(1) to (3) of the TLR & LR Act 1960 Dated 15/05/1980, is hereby withdrawn in
respect of the land measuring 604.87 acres of Mouja Hiracherra, Dhaliar Kandi, Irani and
Srinathpur in Silkote Tea Company (Hirachera Tea Estate, kailashaahar ). This land shall
accordingly be resumed by the State Government. And the remaining land measuring 78.07
acres in RS plot no-514 (33.09 ascre) &547(44.98 acre) of mouja Hirachera shall remain in
the name of The Silkote Tea Company but the company is liable to prove by 31.01.2021
regarding the activates of the company and clarify its legal status Based on this, the
decision to retain the remaining land will be considered.
The DM & Collector, Unakoti District is directed for correction of the aforesaid
land as 'khas' in favour of the State Government and also for correction of all relevant
records accordingly.
With the above order, this case is hereby disposed off.
Informed all concerned............."
[24] Thereafter, on 19.02.2021, SDM, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura (respondent
herein) by issuing a memorandum converted a portion of land belonged to the petitioner
company into Govt. khas land and informed the petitioner company not to undertake any
kind of activities without prior permission of the competent authority in Revenue
Department. The impugned memorandum dated 19.02.2021, reads as under:
"M E M O R A N D U M
In reference to the verdict of the Hon'ble Court of Revenue Secretary, Govt of
Tripura vide case no. 07/Rev/Secy/2020 U/S 178(4) of TLR & LR Act, 1960, a total of
604.87 acres of land belonging to Silkote Tea Company Ltd. has been converted into Govt
khas land except 78.07 acres of land bearing RS plot no. 514(33.09 acres) and 547(44.98
acres) of Hiracherra Mouja under Tilagaon TK.
It is to bring to the notice of the management of Silkote Tea Company Ltd.
(locally known as Hiracherra Cha Bagan) not to undertake any kind of activities without
prior permission of the competent authority in Revenue Department. Undertaking any kind
of unauthorized activities on the plots in question will be treated as illegal trespass and
trespassers will be liable to be prosecuted......"
[25] It is also seen from record that wayback in the year 1963 on behalf of
Hiracherra Tea-Estate, a letter was addressed to the Administrator, Tripura Administration
praying for exemption from the operation of Sec.164 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land
Reforms Act, 1960 under Section 178(1) of the said Act stating that Hiracherra Tea-Estate is
in possession of land. In the said letter also, it was not stated that they are the owners of the
said land.
[26] On perusal of records and upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner company herein neither have established their
locus in terms of claiming ownership nor have shown that they are in possession since 1963.
They have been unable to make out their case to prove that they are an „intermediary‟ or
„raiyat‟ or they have any rights to be claimed as an intermediary to certain lands. Since the
earlier proceedings of the Government such as, the Gazette Notification dated 22.03.1963
and order dated 04.12.1975 of the Commissioner of Revenue etc. & Secretary to the
Government of Tripura have attained finality and relief claimed therein for retaining and
restoring was rejected thus, the proceedings dated 05.12.2020 and the Memorandum dated
19.02.2021 which are under challenge in this writ petition also follow on the same footing.
[27] At this juncture, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the present
consequential proceedings and seek a relief for allowing the retention/restoration. It is seen
from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the gazette notification dated 22.03.1963 and
the order of the Revenue Department dated 04.12.1975 are not filed and there is no whisper
in the averment. The said documents are filed by the Government. Thus, this Court draws
inference against the conduct of the petitioner as they have suppressed the facts and have not
approached the Court with clean hands. This writ petition is misconceived.
[28] As discussed above, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the
petitioner for restoring the land as per year 1963 ante.
[29] In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 and subsequent, memorandum dated 19.02.2021
passed by the respondents be upheld. Resultantly, the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.07.20 15:28:21 +05'30'
