Judgment:
ORDER:
1. By this writ-petition, the petitioners have sought cancellation of auction notice dated 30th May, 2011.
2. The case of the petitioners is that a Ferry Ghat in the concerned Gram Panchayat was settled in their favour for 2011-2012 and the bid price was being paid in instalments granted by the respondent No.5. Two instalments have already been paid and just prior to payment of the third instalment the said notice has been issued. As a vested right of the petitioners is sought to be unsettled, this application has been filed and orders sought.
3. Counsel for the State-respondents submits that ferries as defined under Section 2(7) of the 1955 Act so also all interest and benefits arising there from is “land”. The Land Management Manual of 1991 provides for certain ferries to be handed over to Panchayat Institutions. Ferries which are declared as Public Ferries under the 1885 Act have not been transferred to the Panchayat Institutions. Section-6 of the 1997 Act deals with the powers of the Tribunal in respect of orders passed by the Authority under a specified Act.
4. Therefore, it is the Tribunal under the 1997 Act which is empowered to adjudicate on the issues raised in this writ-petition and for lack of jurisdiction this application is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that under the 1997 Act any order of an Authority under the specified Act which Act is the 1955 Act can be decided by the Land Tribunal. The Toll in respect of the concerned Ferry Ghat is paid to the State Exchequer. Therefore, all that the petitioners are entitled to is to operate the Ferry Ghat without any interest is being created in the land. At best, their entitlement to operate the Ferry Ghat can be termed as a privilege and therefore this application is maintainable.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, by an advertisement dated 30th May, 2011, offers were invited from bidders in respect of the concerned Ferry Ghat. It is that action of the respondent No.5 which is under challenge as the Ferry Ghat was settled in favour of the petitioners for the period 2011-12 in April, 2011. Payments have also been made and without issuance of any termination notice, show-cause why termination should not be effected the advertisement dated 30th May, 2011 has been issued. The specified Act referred to in the 1997 Act is the 1955 Act. As no interest is created in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the settlement, it cannot be construed that the petitioner acquires interest in the land as the land continues to belong so also the Ferry Ghat to the State Government. The benefit is also received by the State Government and not in any manner by the petitioners as prior to settlement the highest bidder is to deposit the auction price with the Treasury who benefits out of such Ferry Ghat. As neither interest nor benefit is created in favour of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petitioners acquire a right or a benefit in the land under the 1955 Act and therefore the question of relegating the matter to the Tribunal under the 1997 Act is not germane.
6. As no reasons have been assigned for issuance of advertisement dated 30th May, 2011 nor has anyone appeared on behalf of the respondent No.5 to contest this application, entitles the petitioners to an order. As no termination notice has been issued nor is there an allegation for failure to deposit sums, the advertisement dated 30th May, 2011, prima facie, cannot be supported and accordingly the interim order passed on 14th June, 2011 be continued till eight weeks.
7. Direction is given for filing affidavits by the parties. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. Matter to appear in the list five weeks hence.
8. The petitioners are directed to communicate this order to the non-appearing respondents.
9. Let xerox plain copies of this order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the parties on usual undertakings.