IMPORTANT POINTS
In absence of stipulation of period, licence may be deemed to be perpetual.
Licensees are also tenure holders.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Review Petition (C) No. 888 of 2015:

Delay condoned in filing the Review Petition.

2. This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 2009, whereby the said appeal was dismissed with a direction to the Review Petitioners-Appellants to make and publish an award in respect of the remaining suit land within four months from the date of the impugned judgment and pay compensation to Respondent No.1. herein. I.A. No. 7 of 2014 was filed by the Review Petitioners-Appellants praying that the order dated 28.11.2013 be modified and suitable direction be given to the appellants with regard to the remaining extent of 5.33 hectares of land regarding which no acquisition proceeding was considered necessary by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The I.A. was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2014, wherein liberty was granted to the Review Petitioners-Appellants to file Review Petition before this Court within six weeks, with further direction that the same would be heard in open court and decided on merits of the case.

3. As the facts of the case are already stated in the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 2009 and I.A. 7 of 2014, for the sake of brevity, the same need not be reiterated herein. The following contentions were advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties in support of their case:

4. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners-Appellants urged this Court to consider reviewing the impugned judgment by placing strong reliance upon the lease deed dated 01.09.1960, executed in respect of the property covered in the acquisition notifications between Krishi Gopalan Silpa Sikshalaya and M/S Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. (the first respondent herein). The learned Attorney General also placed reliance upon the license deed dated 02.01.1990 executed in Form AG-3 under Sections 146 (ii) and 164 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation, 1966”), by way of which licensing rights were granted to Respondent No.1 in respect of Survey Nos. 22/3 and 23 measuring 8.86 hectares for commercial purposes, subject to the general provisions of the Regulation, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder. The learned Attorney General submits that it is a privilege conferred upon Respondent no.1, and no absolute interest in the land is created by virtue of the said license. The license period was for an initial period of 30 years, with the option of a further renewal for a maximum period of 60 years. Further, the said license could be terminated at the will of the Review Petitioners- Appellants.

5. The learned Attorney General further places strong reliance upon the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “L.A. Act”) issued by the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Administration dated 23.07.2002 and 24.07.2002 respectively, to show that the building structures, trees and crops standing on the suit land as described in the Schedule to the said notifications are required for the public purpose of development of port related facilities.

6. The learned Attorney General further contends that the Award No. 5-39/LA/ADM/2002, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 26.09.2002 was infact contrary to the aforementioned acquisition notifications. The notifications classify the building structures, trees and crops standing on the land mentioned in the Schedule including Survey Nos. 22/3 and 23 as commercial properties. Further, the Land Acquisition Collector erred in not noticing the fact that the acquisition notifications specifically mention that Respondent No.1 is a licensee and not the owner of the land, and thus erred in determining the market value of the land as the same is not legally perm