BORGANG TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these proceedings involve similar questions of interpretation of the provisions contained in Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 ('TLR & LR Act' for short). However, facts differ from case to case. The common feature of these proceedings is that all the original petitions or the writ appeals, as the case may be, are filed by entities engaged in managing tea estates and manufacturing tea. They were granted retention permissions and exemptions by the competent authorities under Section 136(1) and under Section 178 of the TLR & LR Act. These exemptions under Section 178 of the Act are either partially or completely withdrawn by the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioners had violated the conditions of the exemptions.

(2.) With this background, we my record individual facts :

(3.) In background of such facts, learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that the authorities had committed serious error in withdrawing the retention and exemption orders with respect to portion of the lands of the petitioners. According to them, there was no breach of any of the conditions committed by the petitioners. The Revenue Secretary, therefore, could not have recalled the earlier order of exemption. It was argued that once a land is allowed to be retained in terms of Section 136(1)(f) of the TLR and LR Act, there was no provision under the Act for recall of such an order. With respect to withdrawal of the exemption from the ceiling provision, it was argued that there was no condition in the exemption orders that the holder of the land cannot carry out rubber plantation. In fact, the rubber plantation was also permissible for exemption from the ceiling provision prior to 2014 when the Section 178 was amended. It is not the case of the respondents that any rubber plantation was carried out after the said amendment. The said amendment is prospective and cannot apply to any plantation of rubber trees carried out before the amendments. It was argued that entire land of a tea estate cannot be covered by tea plantation. Some areas and slops are not suitable for tea plantation. If such portions of land are utilised for the purpose of rubber plantation which was also a permissible use till amendments were made in Section 178 of the Act in the year 2014, the same cannot be termed as a breach of the exemption order. Essentially thus the contention of the petitioners was that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the exemption orders and that the exemptions, therefore, could not have been withdrawn.