Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Vs.
M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES – RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO. 7 OF 2014IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1810 OF 2009 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS.263 & 264 OF 2014
Decided On : 11-12-2014
(1988) 2 SCC 602; (2013) 3 SCC 571; (1968) 2 SCR 892; (2003) 10 SCC 321; [1920] AC 508 – Referred
(b) Supreme Court Rules 1966 – Order XL – Review of Supreme court case – Erroneous acquisition of public land – Fact that the person claiming as person interested was only a licensee and the land actually belong to the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Not brought to the notice of Courts at any stage – Error of fact resulting in irreparable loss to Government and miscarriage of justice – Sought to be corrected by instant IA – Not maintainable. (Para 14)
(c) Supreme Court Rules 1966 – Order XL – Any error of fact or law occurring in judgment of Supreme Court – Proper way of correction is not IA in Appeal – But filing Review petition under Order XL of Supreme Court Rules – Appellant given liberty to file review within six weeks. (Para 7, 15, 16)
(2013) 2 SCC 698; (2000) 7 SCC 296; (2004) 12 SCC 713; (1982) 2 SCC 398 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This I.A. No. 7 has been filed by the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 2009 to modify the order in the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and urged certain relevant facts.
Finding of the Court:
Errors of fact and or law can be corrected in a review petition and not by way of IA I concluded appeals.
Result: Appellant given liberty to file review petition.
ORDER
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
This I.A. No. 7 is filed by the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 2009, which was disposed of on 28.11.2013 by this Court. The appellants have filed this application to modify the said order in the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and urged certain relevant facts.
2. The learned Attorney General of India, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the land bearing Survey No. 22/3-23 measuring 8.86 hectares in Shorepoint Village, Bambooflat, South Andaman, was recorded as Grant in favour of Krishi Gopalan Shilpa Shikshalaya, Calcutta. Thereafter, it was allotted in favour of the respondent herein by way of a licence deed in Form -AG-3, which was executed on 2.1.1990 by the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair in exercise of his power under Clause (ii) of Section 146 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short “The Regulation, 1966”) for commercial purpose, subject to the general provisions of the said Regulation made therein with certain conditions for a period of 30 years, which was effective from 1.1.1968. The relevant conditions in Clauses 6 and 7 of the Form AG-3, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the appellants which terms of the licence state that the granting authority has the power of cancellation or modification of the licence and it can resume forthwith the whole or part of the land under licence and in the event of cancellation or resumption of the licence as aforesaid, no compensation shall be paid to the licensee. Further, the licence is subject to the payment of premium of Rs.1,06,320/-. Further, reliance was placed upon the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) (2), 6(1), 7 and 17 (1) & (4) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A.Act”), to show that, what was proposed to be acquired by the respondent were pieces and parcels of the land along with the trees and structure if any, standing thereon which are needed for public purpose namely, for the development of Port related facilities. The learned Attorney General further submits that the land was granted by way of licence to the respondent for the purpose of running the respondent’s timber industry, hence, he cannot be called as an interested person in terms of Section 3 (b) of the L.A. Act, as the land was granted in his favour as a licensee. It is further contended that under the provision of Section 146 clause (i) of the Regulation, 1966, a licence can be granted in favour of the licensee in respect of the government land for a maximum period not exceeding 30 years with an option for renewal for a like period i.e. upto 60 years, for the purpose of cultivation of rubber crop, a longer period may be specified by the Chief Commissioner with the approval of the Government. Reliance was also placed by him upon the provision of Section 38(1) of the Regulation, 1966 to substantiate the plea of the appellants that all the land in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is vested absolutely with the Government, save as provided by or under this Regulation, no person shall be deemed to have acquired any property therein or any right to or over the same by occupation, prescription or conveyance or in any other manner whatsoever, except by a conveyance executed by or under the authority of the Government.
3. Further, reliance was placed upon Section 141 of the Regulation, 1966 which states that there shall be 4 types of classes of tenants namely,(i) Occupancy tenants; (ii) Non-occupancy tenants; (iii) Grantees; and (iv) Licensees and also Section 142 (a) and (b) and Section 143 which defines different kinds of occupancy and non-occupancy tenants. Section 144(1) provides for the class of grantees. Section 144(2) is a non obstante clause, which provides that a person who, not being an occupancy or non-occupancy tenant, is in possession of an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
