PADAM BAHADUR TAMANG AND ORS. Vs. THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition involves two sets of properties, the first one of which is described in Schedule 'A' set out in the Writ Petition which pertains to plot numbers 495, 500 and 488/698 in all measuring 1.6020 hectares, as per the new survey record, that correspond to plot numbers 260 and 265 measuring 15.70 acres (as per the Petitioners) that originally stood recorded in the name of one San Maya Tamang, daughter of Pratap Singh Tamang and is presently recorded in the name of the Petitioner No. 1. The second set of land are those bearing plot numbers 498, 499 and 500/697 in total measuring 0.6960 hectare as per the survey record of 1977 -79 set out in Schedule 'B'. These plot numbers correspond to plot number 259 measuring 0.91 acre, as per the old survey of 1952 -55, which originally belonged to one Ajabir Kami but, subsequently corrected in the name of the Petitioner No. 2 who had purchased it from him.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioners is that these properties were owned and possessed by their predecessors -in -interest and recorded in their names during the old survey operations of 1952 -55. However, during the intervening period those were inundated by the river Teesta due to change in its course and when it reverted back to its original course and the land restored, it remained uncultivated and unused. During the last survey operations of 1977 -79, it thus got recorded as "Government Forest Land". It is stated by the Petitioners that on their representations, the records in respect of the land were rectified and restored in their names in the revenue records. It is further the case of the Petitioners that later the entire properties were acquired by the State Government for a Hydel Project but, compensation has not been paid to them who were the rightful owners. It is thus essentially prayed that they be paid adequate compensation for the use and occupation as well as damages caused to the land by the User Agency, Respondent No. 5.

(3.) THE Respondent No. 2, the PCCF -cum -Secretary, Forest, Environment and Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim, has in a separate counter -affidavit, while reiterating the stand of the Respondent No. 1, averred that the Forest Department was neither intimated nor any clearance obtained from them while correcting the land records in favour of the Petitioners. It is their categorical stand that for all intent and purposes the land being claimed by the Petitioners is a part of the Government Forest Land.