IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
K.R. Suresh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. – Respondents
WPA No.16 Of 2022
Decided On : 03-05-2024
(A) Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 - Section 146(ii) - Writ petition challenging the order of the Lieutenant Governor rejecting the claim for land regularization - The petitioner claimed rights as a licensee but was found to have been granted land on lease for five years only - The court held that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a license and upheld the impugned order. (Paras 3, 4, 15, 18)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to substantiate claims with proper documentation, which was not provided in this case. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a descendant of a pre-42 settler, claimed rights over land allotted under the Regulation Act but was found to have been granted a lease for five years only, which expired in 1992.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence supporting the claim of a license and upheld the rejection of the petitioner's request for regularization of land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had any rights as a licensee or if the land was granted on lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not claim rights over the land as a licensee since the documentation indicated a lease agreement, which had expired.
Result: Writ application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers –
b. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 to set aside / cancel/ annul the impugned order no 221 dated 21/10/2021 passed the respondent no 1 is bad in eyes of law against the provision of the A & N Islands LR & LRR 1968.
c. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 to pass necessary orders for correction of revenue records as License instead of Lease the provision of the A & N Islands LR & LRR 1968.
d. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 & 2 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the alleged paper publication dated 02-09-2021 wherein in contrary to law an advertisement was published contending that the possession pertaining to the subject landed property in question was taken back by the A & N Administration, and to pass further necessary order taking action against such Officer who published a wrong publication in NEWS paper.
e. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the relevant records before this Hon'ble Court enabling the court to render justice in the matter.
f. Other or further Writ and/or direction and/or order as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. In this Writ Application the challenge is the order being no. 221 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected.
Brief facts:-
3. The writ petitioner is descendant of a pre-42 settler in possession of land measuring an area of 180 sq. meters at village Aberdeen under Port Blair Tehsil since 1970. The land in question was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioner under Section 146 (ii) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (for short Regulation Act) on approval of the competent authority and a licence to that effect was issued under Form AG-1. Subsequent to that allotment, the licence and formal possession of the land was also made and possession certificate was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner is still in possession of the land and in the extracts of the Khasra register and map of the said village the name of the petitioner appears. The land revenue of the said land allotted in favour of the petitioner was continuously paid by him to the authorities for five years from 1987 to 1991. But, in 1992 when the petitioner went to pay the land revenue, the authorities refused to accept the same and informed the petitioner that the land was given on ‘lease’ for five years only. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained certified copy of the extracts of the Khasra register wherein there was a remark that the land is given on lease basis only for five years. The petitioner started corresponding to the authorities for correcting the anomaly in the records with a prayer for regularizing the allotment as a licence land. The petitioner alleged inter alia that the licence was issued under Form AG-1 and the same was allotted under Section 146(ii) of Regulation Act. As such, the petitioner has been conferred with the rights and liabilities to enjoy the land as licence only. He further claimed that the land was allotted by invoking Section 146 (ii) of the Regulation Act and therefore the petitioner’s tenancy is that of a licencee as defined in the Section 145 of the Regulation Act.
4. The Lieutenant Governor disposed of the matter by the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected and land was taken back by the Government. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner with the prayer for cancellation of the impugned order and also to g
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish rights as a licensee, as the land was granted on lease for a fixed term, which had expired.
The Deputy Commissioner's order on land regularization is binding and cannot be revisited by administrative authorities once finalized.
Writ petitions are maintainable where statutory authorities exceed or usurp their jurisdiction, particularly when prior valid leases are ignored, necessitating correction of Record of Rights in favor....
Orders made by statutory authorities lacking jurisdiction can be challenged in writ petitions, especially when valid leases are ignored, affirming the court's authority to rectify such errors.
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
A simple sale deed cannot be regularized after a lengthy delay without adhering to statutory procedures, highlighting jurisdiction issues and due process in land disputes.
Authority cannot cancel confirmed leases under a different statute, maintaining jurisdiction of High Court to intervene when lower authority exceeds legal bounds.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.