WP(C)/27/2012 of Kumar Pradhan Vs The State Of Sikkim on 3 September 2012

Pradhan, the Petitioner has been asked to approachthe appropriate Court of Law for the purpose. In myview, the stand taken by the District Collector, EastSikkim, appears to have taken an erroneous view.Since in the existing Parcha Khatian in respect of theland as found in Annexure-1 (colly) to the WritPetition at page 15, the land recorded in the name ofthe grandfather of the Petitioner, namely, HarkaBahadur Pradhan, son of Pauda Singh Newar, therewould be no impediment in getting the land recordrestored in the name of the grandfather as per theexisting Parcha Khatian. The Civil Suit, as perinformation given to us by the learned Counsels,pertains to dispute over the title of the propertybetween the Petitioner and his uncle, Shri DurgaDass Pradhan as also contained in the letter dated13.8.2012 addressed to the Additional AdvocateGeneral by the District Collector, and, therefore, therestoration of the Revenue Record in the name of thegrandfather of the Petitioner and of the uncle, ShriDurga Dass Pradhan, would in no way affect therights of either of the parties in the Civil Suit. TheState Respondents may, therefore, take necessary steps for getting the land records restored in the SGPG-1/Comp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos./13.08.2011

iu p` (c3 rf a . sl+ I a`rty a .

name of Harka Bahadur Pradhan, leaving the partiesto settle their title in the pending Civil Suit.

Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, the learnedGovernment Advocate, in his usual fairness submitsthat there would be no difficulty to comply with thedirection and that he shall convey about it personallyto the District Collector, East Sikkim for itsexpeditious compliance.

In view of this nothing further needs to begone into in the Writ Petition. However, Mr. A.Moulik, learned Senior Advocate repre.senting theRespondent No.6, submits that the liability of theCompany would be confined only to the constructionand the activities within 26.2313 hectare of forestland allotted to it by the State Government, forwhich necessary compensation has already been paidto the State Government and would not be liable forsuch payment. We are not concerned with thepayment of compensation in respect of theacquisition of land in the present proceedings, and,therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to enterinto this question. Suffice it to observe that noimpediment under the law exists for the Petitioner to take up the issue with regard to the question before IndexInternetes / No-at

the appropriate authority permissible under the lawand it is open for the Petitioner to take up orinstitute necessary proceedings for payment of suchcompensation and the damages caused to the landincluding the standing crops. It would be toopremature for this Court to enter into thosequestions.In view of the above directions it would befutile to keep this matter lingering any further.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed interms of the above.

03.09.2012