UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS unusual confrontation pitches the Union of India represented by the NF Railway, Maligaon against the State of Assam, over a challenge to the notifications dated 16. 12. 2006 of the Deputy Commissioner and Collector Kamrup (Metro), District-Guwahati, under Section 3 (1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964 (hereafter referred to as the 'assam Act'), seeking to requisition the land and building described in the schedules thereto. The Union of India as the writ petitioner, questions the legality and the validity of the said notifications.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. R. Chakraborty and Mr. Patwari Advocates for the State respondents.

(3.) THE prefatory facts, constituting the foundation of the rival stands, are provided in the pleadings. The petitioner has maintained that the land involved, was acquired by the State of Assam for the N. F. Railways (hereafter for short as 'railways'), for which the latter have schemes and projects for the development and commercial exploitation thereof, in public interest. The land is in possession and control of the Railways since 1917 initially with the Assam Bengal Railways and thereafter in succession under the BDAR, Assam Railways, North Eastern Railways and finally NF Railways. Acknowledging the ownership of the Railways, the State of Assam initiated a process for taking over the land and buildings on lease for a period of 35 years. Though, the proposal having been entertained by the petitioner, had made sufficient progress, there was an inexplicable turnaround following which the notifications were issued. Insisting that the land was a property vested in the Central Government, it has been asserted that consequently no tax or revenue had been paid to the State Government. The notifications have been questioned as incompetent and lacking in jurisdiction, being beyond the purview of the Assam Act, as the land belongs to the Central Government and/or the Railways under its use. The relevance and bona fide of the purpose of requisition as referred to therein, has also been impeached. According to the petitioner, in any view of the matter, the object of the purported requisition is not in any way emergent in nature and, therefore, the Assam Act, is not attracted in the facts of the instant case. The direction to handover the land and buildings immediately, according to the petitioner, is in contravention of the letter and spirit of Section 3, more particularly for the right of appeal provided therein. Moreover, as no notice as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, had been issued to the owner, tenant or the occupier of the land, the process stands vitiated by the infraction thereof. The professed purposes, for which the land is sought to be requisitioned, have been assessed to be less significant and essential compared to those for which the Railways contemplate to utilize the same. In reply, the State respondents have asserted that the land belongs to the Government of Assam as per the revenue records, but under the use of the Railways, since long. However, at present, the purpose for which the land had been used by the Railways, having ceased to exist, the same had been abandoned by it. The answering respondents categorically denied that the land had been acquired by the State Government for the Railways. According to them, the land is sought to be requisitioned for important public purposes, namely, to facilitate the construction of i) Multi storied car parking; ii) a link road as well as; iii) creation of a traffic Rotary on the G. N. B. Road on an emergent basis. This they have proclaimed is urgently warranted in view of the alarming rise in traffic congestion in the area and the lack of parking facilities leading to mounting chaos. The respondents have contended that in any view of the matter, disputed questions of fact having emerged, this Court would not indulge in a fact finding inquiry in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction and that having regard to the totality of the facts the challenge deserves to be dismissed.