Dismissed

M/S. Tinsukia Development Corporation v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Feb 2022WP(C)/137/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the formation of a District Valuation Committee and a notification enhancing land zonal value. The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi as they had not suffered a legal injury, only an imaginary one, at the time of filing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; interim order of 09.01.2019 was vacated with liberty to challenge if subsequently aggrieved.

M/S. Tinsukia Development Corporation Vs the State of Assam… — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010004052019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/137/2019

¶5

M/S. TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

¶6

A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A.T. ROAD,

¶7

TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, NAMELY, SRI SANJAY AGARWAL ( 44 YEARS), SON OF SRI BIJAY AGARWAL, R/O A.T. ROAD, P.O. AND DIST.TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN - 786125

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER UPPER ASSAM DIVISION JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ECORDS AND SURVEY ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI.

¶12

4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION ASSAM GUWAHATI.

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM.

¶16

6:THE DISTRICT VALUATION COMMITTEE TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B. DUTTA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 04-02-2022

¶22

Heard Mr. B Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Saikia, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. R Borpujari, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶23

The instant writ petition been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing formation and constitution of the District Valuation Committee, Tinsukia; for setting aside and quashing of Acts and Determination of the

¶24

Zonal Value/Circle as determined by the District Valuation Committee, Tinsukia; for setting aside and quashing of impugned notification bearing No.TLSP.12/2018/12/14 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.5 as the Chairman of the respondent No.6 enhancing and fixing the zonal value of the land of Tinsukia district and for a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the concerned respondent authorities to forbear from giving effect to the notification No.TLSP.12/2018/12/14 dated 20.08.2018.

¶25

A perusal of the writ petition and more particularly, paragraph No.2 of

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

the said writ petition goes to show that the petitioner claims to be a company primarily dealing in infrastructure project and also in the business of real estate and has successfully completed several construction projects. The petitioner also claims that the petitioner is active in the development of Township and Colonies and also acquires land for such projects. Apart from that the petitioner also owns several land and immovable property in an around Tinsukia town which has been leased out and rented out to different lessee/tenants on rental basis for a long period of time. On the basis of same, the petitioner challenged the notification bearing No.TLSP.12/2018/12/14 dated 20.08.2018 whereby the zonal valuation of the land of Tinsukia District has been enhanced and fixed allegedly in an exorbitant and irrational manner. 4. Before proceeding on the question of merits, it would be relevant to take note of that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceedings, unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person(s). Only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc in a court of law. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right or where there is a complaint by the petitioner that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which a writ jurisdiction, at the behest of person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance.

¶28

The existence of such legal right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Now the question therefore arises as to what is a legal right? A legal right means an entitlement arising out of the legal rules. It is only when the said legal right is being affected, the petitioner can be said to be a person aggrieved. The expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers a psychological or imaginary injury. A person

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

aggrieved must therefore necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized.

¶31

In the instant case, except the statement made in paragraph No.2 that the petitioner is in the business of real estate and as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the zonal valuation so fixed vide the impugned communication dated 20.08.2018, the petitioner may be affected is nothing but a complaint as regards a imaginary injury which does not fit within the ambit of legal injury and thereby make the petitioner a ‘person aggrieved’. However, this Court also takes note of that if the petitioner in view of the said impugned notification dated 20.08.2018 suffer or has suffered on account thereof than the petitioner obviously would be a person aggrieved to initiate a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Taking into account the statements made in the writ petition and also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as of now the petitioner has not suffered any legal injury but may suffer on account of the impugned notification, the petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the proceedings and as such the instant writ petition at the present stage is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to assail the said notification, if so advised, as and when the petitioner is aggrieved with the said notification in terms with the observations made herein above.

¶33

With the above observations, the instant petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed on 09.01.2019 stands vacated.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Tinsukia Development Corporation v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Tinsukia Development Corporation v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sai Baba Enterprises and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Smita Rani Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Manikanta Machahary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kamal Kakati Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Diganta Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Boby Bora and Ors.