The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass orders for recovery of possession under Regulation 1966, and the recovery of possession was illegal. The judgment also emphasizes the principle that a latter enactment would have an edge over the earlier enactment operating in the same field, being the special Act.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The instant mandamus appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the Single Bench in WP No.163 of 2016 setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Deputy Commissioner with further direction to handover the possession of the property in question to the respondent within six weeks from the date.

2. Before we proceed to deal with the findings returned in the impugned order by the Single Bench, it would be relevant and apposite to record the facts involved in the instant appeal.

3. The dispute relates to a piece and parcel of land measuring about 18 acres, 2 canals and 12 marlas comprised in revenue plot No.166 in Calicut and plot No.4 in Beodanabad. The said land was settled in favour of one Shri K.C.Kuruvilla, since deceased, as licensee in or about the month of September, 1959 for a period of 30 years with effect from 18th September, 1959 for the purpose of cultivation of long lived crops. Such licence was granted in terms of section 4(1)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation (III) of 1926 and the said licence was subject to general provisions of the said Regulation and the Rules made thereunder.

4. Subsequently, the said licensee applied for prior permission under section 5(2) of the said Regulation of 1926 to transfer and convey the right of licence in respect of the subject land in favour of Captain J.C.Datta (since deceased) for residuary period of the licence. By an order dated 6th July, 1968, the permission was accorded under the aforesaid provisions for sale of the subject land and in furtherance of such permission having accorded, the original licensee sold, transferred and conveyed the subject land to Captain J.C.Datta by executing a sale deed dated 14th February, 1969. Since the tenure of the licence was due to expire sometime in 1989 more particularly in the midnight of 17th September, 1989, an application was taken out by the subsequent purchaser on 11th July,1989 for renewal of the said licence for another period of 30 years in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation of 1926. On the basis of the said application, the Assistant Commissioner caused a letter dated 18th May, 1990 to the subsequent purchaser and made requisition of several documents to be produced.

5. Amidst the pendency of the said application the subsequent purchaser died on 27th August, 2012 leaving behind him surviving his widow who through her constituted attorney made application dated 5th December, 2013 before the Tehsildar for correction of the record of rights by mutating her name. Keeping all such applications pending the Deputy Commissioner initiated a proceeding being RC Case No.115 of 2015 by issuing a show cause dated 8th May, 2015 calling upon the subsequent purchaser why the land should not be resumed back having expired by efflux of time. The aforesaid show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner as Revenue officer under the provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. The widow of the subsequent purchaser appeared through the constituted attorney and in course of the proceeding, the constituted attorney signified the intention of the widow to vacate the land if some time is granted to her.

6. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 15th May, 2015 directing the vacation of the land within three days therefrom. Immediately thereafter an application was taken out by the widow through constituted attorney to prefer an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected on 18th May, 2015. However, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority and an application for stay of the operation of the order was also filed seeking to stay the order vacating the premises in the said appeal. While the said appeal was pending the possession was taken on the same day i.e. 19th May, 2015 which constrained the respondent to file a writ petition being WP No.111