JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge dated December 15, 2004 dismissing his writ petition.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed questioning the decision of the authority dated June 28, 2004 given in compliance with the order of a Single Judge of this Court dated March 19, 2004 made in the appellant's previous writ petition.

( 3 ) THE authority considered his request for allotment of a plot of homestead land measuring. 33 acres, in view of his claim that he was entitled to such allotment in terms of a scheme dated December 8, 1950.

( 4 ) THE scheme dated Decembers, 1950 was framed by the Government for giving certain concessions mentioned therein to 83 non-agriculturist families displaced from the erstwhile East Bengal. One of the concessions was: each family was to be given a plot of homestead land measuring. 33 acres. The family to which the appellant belonged was one of the displaced families.

( 5 ) THOUGH in terms of the scheme the family was at liberty to ask for the concessions, no reasonable expected step was taken by its any member demanding allotment of a plot of homestead land to the family. The appellant's father, being the only major male member of the family in 1951, got Government service. The appellant also, in his turn, took Government service. By an order dated July 16,1979 the competent authority granted a licence to the appellant's father to occupy a plot of land for house-site measuring 131 square metres.

( 6 ) THE licence was granted under provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, Section 146 (ii ). The licensee was to pay a premium determined at Rs. 655/-, in addition to payment of land revenue, cesses, fees, etc. payable under the regulation. The licensee acted upon the order.

( 7 ) SUDDENLY in 1992 the licensee made a representation to the authority alleging that though under the 1950 scheme his family was entitled to get a plot of homestead land measuring. 33 acres, the authority concerned allotted a plot of land for house-site measuring only 131 square metres.

( 8 ) SINCE the representation, followed by others, did not receive any meaningful attention of the authority, the appellant took out a writ petition before this Court in 2004. At the date that writ petition was taken out, the appellant's father (i. e. the original licensee) was dead (he died in 1994 ). The order dated march 19, 2004 was made in that case.

( 9 ) ADVOCATE argues that on the ground of delay the case of the appellant ought not to have been rejected by the Single Judge. We find that delay was one of the grounds on which the Single Judge held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief. In our considered view, the question of delay in approaching the writ Court was correctly addressed by the Single Judge.

( 10 ) THE scheme was framed in 1950. In view of the list of displaced families prepared by the authorities in 1951, the father of the appellant, as the head of the family, was at liberty to ask the authorities for the concessions mentioned in the scheme. He did not show real interest in getting a plot of homestead land.

( 11 ) IT is not the case that the family did not receive the other financial concessions. It is not known why the family acted in such a manner. It is also not known how and why the occasion to grant a licence under the 1966 regulation arose. However, a licence under that regulation was granted by the authority concerned on July 16, 1979.

( 12 ) THE appellant's father as well as the appellant (around 33 in 1979 : see 1951 list) felt satisfied with the licence granted in 1979. This was apparently the reason why they did not make any grievance till the year 1992. The authorities say that before 1992 the licensee had illegally brought under his occupation a larger area of land.

( 13 ) THE authority recorded in his decision that operation of the 1950 scheme had ceased long ago. It is apparent that af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document