S. Murugesan vs Lieutenant Governor And Others

Subhasis Dasgupta, J

By filing this writ petition, a mandamus has been sought for commanding respondent authorities, in particular respondent No 2, to settle a piece of land in favour of writ petitioner for his alleged claim of long and un-interrupted possession with due knowledge of respondent authorities, after restoring possession, if necessary, for the deliberate action undertaken by the respondent authorities interfering with peaceful possession of the writ petitioner describing the same to be violative of Regulation 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

The writ petitioner made a representation dated 8th October, 2014 to the Lieutenant Governor seeking regularization of land under possession of writ petitioner with others. In the list appended to the representation to the Lieutenant Governor, the name of the writ petitioner figured in Serial No.1.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that by a No Objection Certificate dated 11th December, 1993, issued by the concerned Tehsildar, Ferrargunj, the writ petitioner has been possessing 200 sq.mtrs of land under Sy.No.3/5 situated at Kalatang Village under Ferrargunj Tehsil by constructing a hut therein spending required expenses therefor. The land, according to the petitioner, is full of ditches and bushes which the petitioner had cleared the same by filling earth, making it ready for construction of a hut therein. Such possession of writ petitioner over the scheduled land is with the knowledge of respondents/Administration.

Learned advocate for the writ petitioner contends that, without issuing any notice, as contemplated under Regulation 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, the respondents/State Administration has attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of writ petitioner by causing damage to a small portion of his property so as to oust him from his possession. Somehow the writ petitioner resisted the illegal activity of the respondents/State Administration.

Regulation 147 has been strongly emphasized by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, while proposing that the State Administration/respondents may be directed to make strict adherence to the Regulation 147 read with Regulation 146 for settlement of the land in favour of petitioner by issuing appropriate licence for the purpose for the period as stipulated therein.

It is further contended by the writ petitioner that any action violative of Regulation 202 is unwarranted and cannot be allowed to sustain, particularly when the writ petitioner already made a representation through the person responsible of the concerned locality seeking settlement of land by adopting a process of regularization, as available under the Regulation.

Mr. Krishan Rao, learned advocate representing the State/Administration as well as Mr. Mandal for the respondents together strongly deny the allegation, as raised by petitioner, contending that the writ petitioner, in the meantime, may have been ousted from the land, over which the writ petitioner has claimed his possessory right.

It is, thus, contended by the State/Administration that for restoration of possession, the writ petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate remedy instead of filing the writ petition. Without filing affidavit, learned advocate representing the state strongly denies the averments contained in the writ petition proposing that the State/Administration should not be made to act in a manner contrary to the provisions of Regulations contained therein.

The point is very short to be addressed by this Court is whether any notice is required to be issued before taking any action in terms of Regulation 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, or not.

Issuance of a notice upon a person in possession of land is the mandate of Regulation 202, and for any infraction of such statutory mandate, writ of mandamus will lie, while ensuring the principle of Natural Justice. Though the writ petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondents/State Administration to restore/settle possession of scheduled land to writ petitioner after undertaking the process of regularization in accordance with law, but this Court is of the view that the purpose of justice will be best served, if writ petition is disposed of giving a suitable direction therefor.

Accordingly the State Administration/respondents, particularly the respondent no.2, is directed to consider the representation of the writ petitioner submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in the year 2014, in terms of the No Objection Certificate dated 11th December, 1993 vide Annexure P-1 to the writ petition issued by the concerned Tehsildar permitting the petitioner to possess 200 sq.mtrs of land under Sy.No.3/5 situated at Kalatang under Ferrargunj Tehsil, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of communication of this order giving opportunity of hearing to writ petitioner of this case.

Pending decision of the representation, submitted by the writ petitioner, as noted hereinabove, the possession of the writ petitioner, if any, over the scheduled land, should not be disturbed in any manner whatsoever.

The writ petition is thus disposed. No order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.