GOPAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. NOTIFIED AREA AUTHORITY KHOWAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to deliver back the possession of the Shed No. 23 at Subhash Part Market, Khowai which was allotted to the petitioner by the Notified Area Authority (Nagar Panchayat).

(2.) I have heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharya, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. De, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent- State.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that after the allotment, he took possession of the aforesaid shed in January, 1986 as a tenant and an agreement of tenancy was executed between him and 4 others on the one side and the Notified Area Authority on the other. The names of other 4 persons (respondent No. 6 to 8) were included as insisted upon by the aforesaid authority. The said agreement was executed and registered on 7-2-1986. The petitioner continued with the possession all alone paying monthly rent to the authority. The petitioner is a fisherman and he was selling fishes from the aforesaid shed. The pro forma-respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 got allotment of separate sheds in their names in the same market and they never occupied the disputed shed where the petitioner was dealing in fish. After the general election to the Tripura Legislative Assembly in 1993, Government was formed by the Left Front and rapid changes were brought about at different levels. Respondent No. 4 created pressure upon the petitioner through the leaders of the political party in power to evict him from the aforesaid shed No. 23. on 18-9-93, the Chairman of the Notified Area Authority being in company of Respondent No.4 and others ordered the petitioner to vacate the shed. The Chairman accompanied by respondent No. 4 and other persons also threatened the petitioner. Being apprehensive of danger to his life and property, the petitioner had to leave the shed on 18-9-93 whereupon the respondent No. 4 occupied the same and since then in possession thereof. It is further alleged that the respondents were armed with different weapons of various kinds. After ouster of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 also joined hands with respondent No.4 and occupied the shed along with Respondent No. 4.