CHANDMARI TEA COMPANY PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are being heard pursuant to the judgment and order dated 11.9.2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in writ Appeal No. 269 of 1999 and other connected cases remanding the matters for a de novo consideration in the light of the affidavit stated to have been filed by the State in Writ Appeal No. 269 of 1999. Writ Appeal No. 269 of 1999 arose out of the common judgment dated 29.6.99 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of all the present writ petitions along with Civil Rule No. 5282 of 1995. The affidavit filed by the State before the learned appellate Court has been duly noticed. The facts of Civil Rule No. 5282 of 1995 are somewhat different from the facts of the present cases. Consequently, the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 5282 of 1995 is delinked from the present cases to be heard separately.

(2.) The detailed facts on which the present writ petitions have been structured, the contentions advanced by the writ petitioners and the stand taken by the State in each of the cases have been stated in details in the earlier judgment and order dated 29.6.99. However, for the purpose of deciding the present writ applications, the facts of each of the cases are considered necessary to be recited, though in brief. In Civil Rule No. 1923 of 1993, the petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification dated 13.6.85 and the final notification dated 3.8.89 issued under the previsions of Section 35 of the Wild Life (Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of the addition of the area mentioned in the schedule to the said notifications to the existing boundaries of the Kaziranga National Park. A notice dated 9.12.92 prohibiting the petitioner from proceeding with tea plantation in the area in their possession has also been questioned in the aforementioned Civil Rule No. 1923 of 1993. The writ petitioners in Civil Rule No. 1923 of 1993 contend that out of total area of the garden measuring 2538 bighas, 2189 bighas are periodic patta land and the remaining 349 bighas are Govt. land over which the writ petitioners have been cultivating tea for the last 60 years. According to the writ petitioners, the schedule to the impugned notification contains a fair amount of ambiguity with regard to the boundaries specified and though a reference is made to the tea estate in the said boundaries, the extent of the area of the tea estate within the said boundaries is not clear. Accordingly, an objection was filed by the tea company on 21.10.85 which according to the writ petitioners, has not been disposed of in the matter required under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. There has been a failure to follow the mandate of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the impugned final notification dated 3.8.89 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, it is contended.

(3.) In Civil Rule No. 3683 of 1994 and Civil Rule No. 3685 of 1994, the petitioners challenge two identical notices dated 15.3.94 issued by the Commissioner, North Assam Division directing the petitioners to show cause along with all papers and documents as to why right and title of the two schools involved in the writ petitions should not be declared illegal and the land vested in the school authorities should not be reverted to the State authority. The aforesaid notices have been purportedly issued under Section 20 of the Act on the ground that the aforesaid lands had been vested in the school authorities after the issuance of the preliminary notification extending the boundaries of the Kaziranga National Park. The writ petitioners in the aforementioned two civil rules contend that as they had no knowledge of the preliminary notification issued by the State Authority, they could not prefer their claims and objections before the competent authority as enjoined by the provisions of the Act. However, as soon as the notices dated 15.3.94 were served, they had filed objections in this regard and that the authority without answering the said objection, are seeking to evict them from the land in question.