CHANDMARI TEA CO Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions as the facts and points of law involved in these cases are common.

(2.) In these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged Notifications dated 11-9-74, 10-9-85 and 25-10-85 and other Notifications issued by the Govt. of Assam notifying extension of the territory of Burachapari Reserve Forest and Kaziranga National Park as per the Schedule mentioned in those Notifications. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the cancellation of Grazing Permits and prayed for a direction to provide for alternative pasture ground for grazing their cattles.

(3.) In Civil Rule No. 1923/93 the petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 13-6-85 and 3-8-89 and the impugned notice dated 9-12-92 issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Bagori by which petitioners were asked not to proceed with Tea Plantation in the area in question which was handedover to the Forest Department by the Revenue Department for the purpose of movement of wild lives to take shelter in the adjacent hills during the rainy and flood season. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner Company has been running the Tea Estate for about 60 years and carrying on plantation and manufacturing of tea in the said Tea Estate, that out of the total garden land of 2538 Bighas, 2189 Bighas are periodic patta land belonging to the petitioner and the remaining 349 Bighas are Govt. land in respect of which the petitioner Company has been paying Tauzi Bahira revenue since 1935. After obtaining approval for extension of the Tea Garden from the Tea Board, it is contended, petitioner Company cultivated 331 Bighas out of the said 349 Bighas of land by planting tea bushes. It is further contended that settlement of the said land was under consideration. In 1977 about 37 Bighas of land has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying Pipe Line by Oil India Ltd. and the tea bushes worth lakhs of rupees were destroyed, reducing the plantation area. Asserting its rights and interest over the said part of land, petitioner claims that for development and extension of the tea garden petitioner took a huge amount of Bank loan under the State Govt. Scheme for tea plantation in the Estate; that pursuant to the approval of the ARDC and Bank loan, petitioner Company carried out the extension of tea plantation in the entire area within its jurisdiction including the area of Govt. land without any interference.