BIJALI MAJUMDER Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 28.12.2013 seeking to acquire their land for construction of a Whole Sale Fish Market. In addition to challenging the very basis of acquisition the petitioner has also challenged the invocation of the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the old Act.

(2.) THE stand of the State is that the land is sought to be required for construction of a Whole Sale Fish Market and it is, therefore, necessary to acquire the land and it was also essential to invoke the urgency provisions of the old Act in view of the nature of the acquisition.

(3.) IN view of the decision which we propose to take it is not necessary to deal with these arguments in detail. As stated by us above, the notification was issued on 28.12.2013. We had called for the files of the case and from a reading of the entire file we find that neither the acquiring authority nor any other department had made out any case for emergency. It was only the Land Acquisition Collector himself who sent a letter to the Joint Secretary that since the funds were available therefore the emergency provisions may be invoked. We are clearly of the view that emergency provision of Section 17 under the old Act could not have been invoked only on the ground that funds are available. Section 17 of the old Act would apply only in cases of urgency and for those purposes which are spelt out in Section 17 itself.