Judgment :

T.S. Thakur, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, whereby MAT No.004 of 2011 filed by the appellants has been dismissed and order dated 20th December, 2010 passed by a Single Judge of that Court dismissing Writ Petition No.174 of 2008 affirmed.

3. The factual matrix in which the controversy arises has been set out at considerable length in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court as also order dated 28th February, 2001 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Shorn of details we may briefly recapitulate the same as under:

4. Vitoba, the grandfather of the first appellant and father of the remaining appellants was allotted a plot of land measuring 43 acres, 12 Kanals and 10 marlas situate within the limit of Ferragunj Tehsil in the South Andaman District in terms of Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926. At some stage of the long drawn proceedings between the parties, one of the issues that arose for determination was whether the grant in question was made in terms of Regulation 4(1)(a) or 4(1)(b) of the Regulation mentioned above. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration (`Administration' for short) was of the view that although the grant was made in Form B under the Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Regulations, the same was in reality a grant under Regulation 4(1)(a) thereof. That part of the controversy no longer survives for consideration before us. The submissions made before us proceeded on the common premise that the grant was indeed one, made under Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Regulation in question.

5. The grant made in favour of Vitoba was in terms of Regulation 4(1)(a) valid for a period of 30 years but could be renewed for another term of 30 years. With the expiry of the initial period of 30 years in the year 1964, the Administration appears to have taken a decision to re-possess the land in question as no renewal of the grant was ordered in favour of the holder. The Deputy Commissioner in that direction passed an order on 26th April, 1974 aggrieved whereof Ram Chander Vitoba, son and Smt. Dan Dei, widow of the deceased grantee filed an appeal before the Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Revenue Secretary disposed of the appeal holding that the Revenue Department having received land revenue from the occupants upto the year 1974, it was too late to say that the grant will not be renewed.

6. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Revenue Secretary in the appeal aforementioned, the Revenue Authorities re-fixed the revenue payable for the landed property and allowed the legal heirs of the original grantee to continue in occupation till 1994 by which time the extended period of the grant also expired, although no formal extension/renewal of grant was made in favour of the occupants. With the expiry of a total period of 60 years, Smt. Sangita Bai wife of Ram Chander Vitoba was called upon to release the land property in favour of the Administration as the same was required for developmental purposes. Aggrieved by the said direction Smt. Sangita Bai wife of Ram Chandra More and mother of the present writ-petitioner filed Writ Petition No.72 of 1994 before the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. A Single Judge of that Court disposed of the said writ petition on 2nd December, 1994 holding, inter alia, as under:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the petitioner has no right in the land since the lease granted in favour of her predecessors in 1934 including the extended period had lapsed in 1994 as per the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. As such the only remedy available to the petitioner, is to make a representation to the authority concerned for a fresh grant in respect of