KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by three petitioners each of whom belongs to the Lepcha community, Bhutia community and the local plains community of the State respectively. By this writ petition, they challenge the validity of allotment of lands made and the agreements entered into with three non-local parties as well as others by the State-respondents in gross violation of Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950 and Article 371-F of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they are citizens of India and permanent residents of Sikkim. As permanent residents of the State they are extremely concerned with the allotment of land policy being presently pursued by the State-respondents in the name of development of the State. Under such policy, permission being given to the outsiders to purchase prime immovable property for setting up industries within the State of Sikkim is adverse to the general interest of the local people. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State respondents in recent times have been allowing certain multi nationals to venture into Sikkim and have gone to the extent of either allotting or acquiring the scarce prime land of the State for allotting the same to such multi-nationals on the pretext of industrially developing the State and in doing so, they have not only totally ignored and neglected the basic rights of the local people but have also violated the provisions of the existing laws in force. In the process, it is further alleged, the State respondents have arbitrarily and illegally allotted such prime lands to one M/s. Akshay Ispat and Ferro Alloys (Pvt. Ltd.) (AIFAL) at Mamring, South District, have granted perpetual lease in respect of about 4 acres of land in the same area to one M/s. SICPA (India) Ltd. and have also allotted forest land measuring over 25 acres at Pangthang near the capital of Sikkim to a non-local private party hailing from South India for the purpose of starting a five-star hotel resort. It is the case of the petitioners that the above allotments have been made by the State -respondents in clear violation of the existing laws by completely ignoring the vital interest of the local people of the State of Sikkim and without any regard to the interest of the future generation.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents, it was not denied that the State Government have granted permission to the three parties named in the writ petition to set up industries in the State of Sikkim. It was contended that Sikkim being one of the least industrially developed States in the country was heavily dependant on Central Government fund. Hence, it was necessary to identify the priorities and emphasise the desirability of achieving speedy industrial development, thereby generating adequate employment opportunities. It was in keeping with the policy of free industrialisation in the State as adopted by the State Government that the said three parties have been given permission to set up their industries after duly complying with the relevant provisions under the related laws. It was, however, contended by raising a preliminary objection, that the writ petition was not maintainable as the issues raised pertain to the Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950 entered into between the then Independent Kingdom of Sikkim and the Government of India, which has now ceased to have any effect on the merger of Sikkim into Indian Union by virtue of 36th Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was accordingly contended that the issues raised by the writ petitioners pertain to matters over which the jurisdiction of the Courts in India have been specifically barred.