WP(C)/35/2003 of Sonam Bhutia and Ors Vs Pawan Kumar Chamling and Ors on 23 November 2004

ORDER

JLJL rA" a.J.

This writ petition has been ffled ty way Of publicinterest litigation. The petitioners are three in number.They claim to have developed aa keen sense of probity inpublic life". They say that they want to expose theiuegalities committed by the respondents in the matter Ofallotment of goverrment land.

2. Secretaries of different departments ofgovernment of Sikkim are arrayed as respondents 2 to 9.Reapondent no.1 is the Chief Minister Of the State andrespondents 10 to 20 are said to be the allottees of plots oflands.

Counter-affidavit has been ffled on behalf ofdepartmental Secretaries (respondents 2 to 9) sworn to bythe Principal Secretary in the Urban Development andHousing Department of the government (respondent no.3).In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the landswere allotted strictly as per the provisions contained in theSiklrim Allotment of Housing Site and Construction ofBuilding (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 and thepetitioners have filed this case with the sole purpose ofgetting publicity and for political ends.

3. The sun and substance of the allegations of thepetitioners is that respondents 1 to 9 arbitrarily and inegallyallotted number of plots and areas of the government land inand around Gangtok in favour of rich and economically well-off individuals who are close confidants of the Chief Minister.4. When the case was called for admission shri D.K.Singh, leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted thatfacts have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit and hehas nothing to argue leaving the maLtter to us to decide onmerit.

5. We have carefully perused the counter-affidavit.It appears therefrom that in the year 1978 land measuringacres 13.65 at 5th mile, Tadong was acquired by thegovernment in Industries Department for setting up a rollerflour mm which was duly set up on the acquired land. Outof the total acquired land, about an acre of land wastransferred to the Rural Development Department forconstruction of a store house and government staff quartersand some portion of land to M/a. Denzong Automobiles onlease basis. The mill was closed down in the year 1999because it incurred losses. During 1998, as there wasdemand for providing house sites the Urban Developmentand Housing Department approached the IndustriesDepartment for transfer of small portion of the vacant land.Pursuant to the said request, the Industries Department pr

pr

transferred less than an acre i.e. 40,636 sq. ft. land infavour of the Urban Development and Housing Departmentfor providing house sites. It was ascertained from theDistrict Collector that market rate at the area was Rs.31.2 Ipaise per sq. ft. On the basis of that rate, the UrbanDevelopment and Housing Department decided that theplots of land which were along the road side should be Rs.35per sq. ft. and the plots lying at the back side i.e. away fromthe road would be Rs.22 per sq. ft. Accordingly the housesites had been allotted in favour of the respondents 10 to 20strictly in accordance with the Silddm Allotment of HousingSite and Construction of Building (Regulation and Control)Act, 1985. Plots were allotted during 1998-99 to those whohad no house site in the urban areas and keeping in viewthe definition of family [section 2(c)I in the alore8aid Act.

6. From the above facts, it transpires that during1998-99 different plots of lands were allotted in favour of theprivate respondents in accordance with the provisionscontained in the Sikkim Allotment of Housing Site andConstmction of Building (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985.The allegation that plots were allotted on nominal price iswithout any basis. On the basis of the report Of the DistrictCollector rate per sq. ft. was fixed at Rs.35 in respect of plotsof lands adjoining the main road and Rs.22 per sq. ft. inrespect of plots of lands lying at the back side which cannot be said to be nominal. 'rhe allottees have alreadyconstnicted their houses on the plots of lands allotted tothem. The allegation that the entire acquired land wasallotted to private individuals is also not correct because aportion of it qess than one acre) had been allotted. Asindicated, allotment was made during 1998-99 and thepetitioners have approached this Court after lapse of morethan three years in questioning the allotment. To our queryas to how the petitioners explain the delay in approachingthis Court, Shri Sinch Submitted that question was put inthe State Assembly on 21.3.2002 asking the government toname the allottees of sites from the land initially acquired forestablishing the flour mill and relevant answer was givenvide annexure Pl and thereafter the writ petition was ffled.

7. In the counter-affidavit (vide paragraph 17), ithas been alleged that the petitioners are prominent membersof political party opposed to the present government. Thereis no denial to the above allegation in the rejoinder filed bythe petitioners. In the circumstances, we have nohesitation to hold that the petitioners are pontically opposedto the present government in power. This is also clear fromthe above submission of Shri Singh because what they couldnot do on the floor of the Assembly they use this Court asthe forum to get their political goal achieved. The petitionersseem to have approached this Court under the guise of redressing public grievance but their purpose was to achievesome political ndenge.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we decline toadmit the wit petition as public interest fitigation.

9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at theadmission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.( R. K.C:hkeifJfusttoeZW3.11J"I agree.NEEEEC.i-.....( N. Stwmnl Stngh );iJfudgeae.11.2Oowi Dictation takenatyped by meDipak Salia