Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Ker) 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Hassan H.V. and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Represented By Its Administrator, Office Of The Lakshadweep Administrator, Kavaratti and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 16772, 13175, 13734, 13835, 14830, 19426 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P. Deepak, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri. Manu. S, SCGC, Adv.

Point of Law : The presiding officer shall himself, any such inquiry proceeding, record a minute of the proceedings in his own hand in English or in language of district, embracing the materials, any averments made by the parties, the material parts of the evidence, the decision, and reasons for same”(sic).

Headnote:
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 - Sections 4, 11(3), 15(1) and Section 78(1)(c) - Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Rules, 1968 - Rule 17 - Unauthorized occupation of ‘pandaram’ lands - Statutes and Regulations – Applicability of - Comply with sanctioned and imperative procedures - Allegations of capriciousness, nepotism and highhandedness, particularly, in issues relating to rights over properties and actions for expropriation; with ‘faithful adherence to due process’ and ‘procedure established by law’ being unexpendable - Persuaded to open this judgment with afore exordium because petitioners impel very grievous imputations against respondents – Lakshadweep Administration and its functionaries, alleging that they are being mercilessly thrown out of the seashores/public places, over which they have been in possession and thus obtaining certain legal rights - either in their asserted position as ‘cowleder’ or through inveterate and longstanding occupation.
Fin Finding of the court :
As per Section 4 of the "Regulations", the Government, or such other officer authorized by it, can appoint several classes of Revenue Officers mentioned therein. It is limpid that officers enumerated therein are 'Revenue Officers' and this is exactly what is stated by 1988 notification'. - The appointments made under the said notification are as 'Revenue Officers', with their respective jurisdiction noted against each. It is this notification, which was thereafter modified by 2012 notification', to the limited extent of re-designating "Sub Divisional Officer, Kavarathi", as "Deputy Collector, Kavarathi". Further more, paragraph 3 of 1988 notification', makes it apodictic that the officers mentioned therein are also the 'Competent Authorities' for the purpose of Section of "Regulations" - A conjoint reading of all the notifications and provisions, court left without any doubt that the Authorities who have issued the impugned notices are certainly the 'Competent Authorities' for the purpose of Section 15 of the "Regulations". The contentions of the petitioners, contrary to this, are therefore, repelled as being without any merit - Impugned notices have been issued under Rule 17(1) of "Rules". The said notices obviously postulate an action under Section 15(1) of "Regulations" and calls upon the persons on whom it is served to show cause why necessary action for summary eviction be not taken against them - Since the competent Authority has already issued final orders, which were not interdicted by this Court during the pendency of these cases, court without doubt that in these two cases at least, the petitioners must file their appeals before the District Collector and that they must be given some time to do so, though the statutory time frame for preferring it had now expired.
Result : Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

It is intrinsic to all State action that it should punctiliously comply with sanctioned and imperative procedures, which alone would keep a bay and avoid the otherwise inevitable allegations of capriciousness, nepotism and highhandedness, particularly, in issues relating to rights over properties and actions for expropriation; with ‘faithful adherence to due process’ and ‘procedure established by law’ being unexpendable.

2. The guarantee that the State would act only legally, is enshrined in the ‘due process’ and ‘procedure established’ doctrines – which are the repository of the substantive assurance of the State against unfairness.

3. I have been persuaded to open this judgment with the afore exordium because the petitioners impel very grievous imputations against the respondents – Lakshadweep Administration and its functionaries, alleging that they are being mercilessly thrown out of the seashores/public places, over which they have been in possession and thus obtaining certain legal rights -either in their asserted position as ‘cowleder’ or through inveterate and longstanding occupation.

4. Though there is a prolix of documents, materials and pleadings on record, the essential grievance of the petitioners in these cases – which require to be heard and disposed of jointly on account of the analogous nature of the factual and forensic issues involved -is that they are being ousted in flagrant violation of law and in a surreptitious manner, deliberately denying them legitimate recourse to legal remedies, to which they are entitled to under the various applicable Statutes and Regulations.

5. I have heard Sri.Babu S Nair and Sri.P.Deepak – learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases and Sri.S.Manu – learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.

6. The genesis of the controversy presented in these cases is that the competent Authority issued notices to the petitioners under Rule 17 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), intimating them that they have been found to be in unauthorized occupation of ‘pandaram’ lands and asking to evict themselves from the areas in question, within the time frames mentioned therein.

7. It transpires that immediately on receipt of the notices aforementioned, the petitioners have approached this Court through these Writ Petitions alleging primarily that the Authority who has issued the notices to them is incompetent as per law; and further that the procedure for summary eviction, as mandated under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’ for short) has been egregiously violated.

8. Compendiously, the assertions of Sri.Babu S. Nair and Sri.P.Deepak -learned counsel for the various petitioners in these cases, are that their clients cannot be presumed, as has been done in the impugned notices, to be unauthorized occupants of Government land and consequently, cannot be proceeded under the provisions of the ‘Regulations’ and ‘Rules’ for eviction. They assert that the power to initiate action with respect to ‘land and land revenue’ by the Lakshadweep Administration, is housed in Chapter III of the ‘Regulations’ which also makes specific stipulations as to the manner in which disputes with respect to the holdings of the Government – even when made by an individual -will have to be adjudicated, dealt with and determined. They, of course, as seen above, have also a specific case that the Authority who has issued the impugned notices is incompetent, going by the ‘Regulations’ and the ‘Rules’.

9. In response, Sri.S.Manu – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the challenge against the incompetence of the Authorities who issued the impugned notices, has no legs to stand on because they have acted as per valid notifications issued by the Administrator of the Islands on 18.04.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document