Darjeeling, June 25: The district
and session court in Darjeeling today upheld the district magistrate’s
decision to impose Section 144 of the CrPc on 13 acres at Jamuni
following landowners’ complaint that the GTA Sabha had forcibly taken
over their plots to set up a tourism project.
Pranay Rai, public
prosecutor, today said: “The judge of the district and session court,
Uday Kumar Yadav, today upheld the district magistrate’s decision to
impose Section 144 on Jamuni (20km from here). Dawa Lepcha, GTA
executive sabha member in charge of tourism department, had filed a
revision against the DM’s order in the court on May 30.”
The DM, Puneet
Yadav, had clamped Section 144 of the CrPc on the land on April 28 for
two months. Nine land holders had alleged that GTA chief executive Bimal Gurung had taken over their 13 acres without consent to develop a
tourist destination and had not paid them compensation till date.
Lepcha had filed
the revision on May 30 and the court had then passed an interim order
staying the prohibitory order till the case was heard.
“During the
hearing, Lepcha’s lawyer argued that the district magistrate’s order was
illegal and wanted to know whether the DM had the power to promulgate
Section 144 against a statutory body like the GTA. I, however, said the
order was not against the GTA but against the general public and in favour of land losers. I also asked whether the GTA had the locus standi
to seek a revision of the DM’s order. The court ruled in our favour and
Section 144 will continue to be imposed in the area,” said Rai.
Lepcha, today said
the GTA would abide by the court’s order. “We will definitely abide by
the court’s order. Anyway, no work is being carried out in the disputed
area right now. Nevertheless, we will seek other legal options on the
issue,” said Lepcha, hinting at the possibility of the GTA approaching a
higher court on the matter.
“We, however,
believe that this issue has been politicised,” said Lepcha, referring to
the Trinamul Congress’s support for the landowners.
The GTA has
maintained that the land losers had willingly given their plots and that
there was no question of forcibly taking over the land.