NAGA HILLS TEA CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the arguments advanced by the parties are that on the 2nd August 1961 a notification was issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Assam and Collector, Lakhimpur District under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by which it was notified that 231B. 3K. of land in village Dilli Grant No. 343 NLR., Mouza Jaipur, Subdivision Dibrugarh, District Lakhimpur was likely to be needed for the company. Another notification was issued on the same date in respect of 212 B. 4 K. 16 L. of land in the same village by which it was notified that this land was needed for a company. In these two notices it was further observed that in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act the State Government decided that in view of the urgency of the project the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to waste or arable land.

(2.) THE Petitioner has mainly alleged three grounds in his petition. He has firstly contended that no advance possession could be taken of the land unless the proceedings under Section 5A were completed or that a proper notice under Section 17(4) was given. In the present case the contention of the Petitioner is that the Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. took possession of the land, cut certain jungles and were constructing certain buildings on this land which act was illegal and this Court should issue a direction restraining them from taking possession of the land.

(3.) IN our opinion there is a considerable force in the argument of the opposite party. It is not denied now that the State has not entered into possession of this land and thus there has been no violation of the provisions of the Act by the State or the Land Acquisition Officer. If the Corporation for which the land is being sought to be acquired, enters under certain agreement over the land whether it has violated the terms of the agreement or not is not a matter which can be decided by this Court. If the Corporation has entered into possession as a trespasser, then the remedy of the Petitioner will be by means of a suit, or if the Corporation has entered into possession in pursuance of the agreement between the Petitioner and the Corporation and the question is whether it has violated the terms of the agreement, the proper forum to decide that question will be a civil court and not this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.