Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Rabindranath Samanta, J.
Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited and Others - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
WPA/43,56,57/2019, WPA/6016, 6019/2020, WPA/187/2021
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Land Revenue Rules - Challenge to amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 - Section 210(1) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 - Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenge the legality and constitutional validity of the amended sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968. They seek directions upon the respondents authorities to dispose of their applications for diversion of land to commercial use for setting up eco-friendly tourism resorts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) are ultra vires of Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of the respective applications of the writ petitioners in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Regulation and relevant rules within six weeks.
Issues: The legality and constitutional validity of the amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: The amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) are ultra vires of Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the actions of the respondents to allow similar applications seeking diversion of land by some real estate players and keep the applications of the petitioners pending since long were highly discriminatory and struck at the root of the doctrine of equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
Final Decision: The amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 were struck down as ultra vires of Section 40 (2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 as well as of Article 14 of the Constitution. The notification dated 17.01.2018 published by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration was quashed. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the respective applications of the writ petitioners in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Regulation and the relevant rule framed thereunder within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Rabindranath Samanta, J.
1. The writ petitions being interrelated to each other were heard together and since a common judgment will govern all the writ petitions I proceed to pen the judgment accordingly.
2. The petitioners by preferring the writ petitions challenge the legality and constitutional validity of the amended sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (in short A & N. Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968) published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration and pray for directions upon the respondents authorities to dispose of the applications made by them for diversion of some tracts of land of them to commercial use to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort over the land.
3. The petitioners of W.P.A. 43 of 2019, in order to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made two applications – one dated 27.05.2010 and the another dated 22.02.2012 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman District for conversion of some tracts of its agricultural lands as particularized in the writ application to commercial use. Though both the two applications were registered as R.C. Case and hearing was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 6 herein, has kept both the two applications pending for years together. On the other hand, the writ petitioner of W.P.A 56 of 2019, for the aforesaid purpose, made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman District at Port Blair on 27.01.2016 seeking conversion of some tracts of his paddy, house site and hilly land to commercial use. Since the application filed by the petitioner was not taken up by the authority concerned for disposal, he by submitting an another application dated 27.11.2016 and ventilating his grievances sought for relief from the authority concerned. But, the application made by him is still pending. The writ petitioner of W.P.A 57 of 2019, also in order to construct an eco-friendly resort, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 27.01.2016 seeking conversion of some tracts of his paddy land, house site and hilly land to commercial use. The application made by the petitioner has not yet been disposed of. The writ petitioners of W.P.A. 6016 of 2020, for the similar purpose, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 5th February, 2016 seeking conversion of its some tracts of land of agricultural and household nature to commercial use. But, the application made by it is still pending. The writ petitioners of W.P.A 6019 of 2020, also to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 16th June, 2016 for conversion of its a tract of agricultural land to commercial use. The application made by the petitioners has also not yet been disposed of by the authority concerned. The writ petitioners of W.P.A 187 of 2021, also for the aforesaid purpose i.e. to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made an application on 5th February, 2016 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District for conversion of its a tract of land as particularized in the application to commercial use. But, this application as made by the petitioners is still pending.
4. The writ petitioners state that they have come to learn that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, declined to pass any order of conversion of their lands to commercial use on the plea that he forwarded the matters to the land use committee for consideration. The petitioners assert that the amended sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 which came into force on 17th January, 2018 cannot have any manner of application to the application
Strict adherence to prescribed procedures in administrative decisions regarding land use is essential; deviations can invalidate administrative actions.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
The Deputy Commissioner's order on land regularization is binding and cannot be revisited by administrative authorities once finalized.
Judicial review applications were dismissed as the State Authority's decisions were lawful, reasonable, and followed due process under the National Land Code, with no valid planning permission suppor....
Existing rights of landless poor persons cannot be revoked without clear legislative intent for retrospective application, and principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actio....
Judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for challenges under the National Land Code, which mandates appeals for such decisions, and the State Authority acted within its discretion in rejecting ....
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
