JUDGMENT The present rule was issued on 11.11.1991 at the instance of the Writ petitioner who has prayed inter alia for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the respondents to cancel the impugned order No. 403 dated 13.8.1991 being annexure R-8 and the impugned decision issued against the petitioner to evict from the piece and parcel of land measuring 200 sq. m. being Plot No. 164/D and 165/8 in Block No. 3A(2) at Hadde village, Port Blair by cancelling the licence as alleged in the Annexure 'A' thereby. It is stated in detail that the petitioner came into possession of the piece and parcel of land measuring about 200 sq. m. in Block No. 3A(2) at Plot No. 164(D) and 168/5 at Hadde village of port Blair Tahsil and she constructed a residential house therein and she has been residing there with the members of the family. Andaman and Nicobar Administration took steps towards the regularisation of encroachment of Govt. land and decided that all pre-1979 encroachments will be regularised on the basis of the report of Encroachment Regularisation Committee Constituted by the A & N Administration. It is placed on record that in the year 1987. A & N Admn. took a decision that eviction proceedings will be initiated against the post-1978 encroachers and no eviction will be initiated against the persons who had encroached the Government land prior to 31.l2.1978. By order No. 4464 dated 24.8.1984, the Andaman and Nicobar Admn. constituted a High Power Committee for regularisation of encroachment cases and thereafter by notice dated 8.10.1984, A & N Admn. invited applications from pre-1979 encroachers to consider their cases for regularisation and pursuant thereto the petitioner applied for regularisation. The relevant circulars and steps taken by the Administration have been referred. 2. In order to regularise the encroached land a Scheme has been formulated and the encroachers have to fulfil the desired conditions for the purpose of regularisation of the respective lands in their wrongful occupation. It is stated that the Committee has approved the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her encroachment of land and thereafter issued a licence on 21.12.1988. After issuing the licence dated 21.12.1988, the petitioner alleged to have spent huge amount for the development of land including the construction of residential accommodation therein. It is alleged that all on a sudden some time on 16.8.1991. After issuing the licence dated 21.12.1988, the petitioner alleged to have spent huge amount for the development of land including the construction of residential accommodation therein. It is alleged that all on a sudden some time on 16.8.1991. The petitioner received a copy of the order no. 403 dated 13.8.1991 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) whereby the petitioner was informed that the Respondent Authorities have cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 31.1.1999. The petitioner's licence was cancelled without giving an opportunity of bearing to the petitioner and being aggrieved the petitioner has come up with this Writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. The petitioner has further alleged that in respect of a portion of the land Port Blair Municipal Board has occupied by a temporary shed for keeping the materials and in spite of the petitioner's request, the Municipal Authorities are not removing the shed and the materials therefrom. 3. The Writ petition is contested both by A & N Admn and by Municipal Board. 4. In the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Municipal Board being Respondent No. 6 it is stated that an area of 200 sq. m. of land comprised in S. No. 164/P situated at Hadde village, Port Blair Thasil is a part of the old plot No. 98 having the total area of 481 sq. m. recorded as Govt. land is in actual possession of the Port Blair Municipal Board for the last 15 years wherein a site office has been functioning from where the sanitary staff are allotted to the respective duties. In side the shed sanitary equipments required for the daily use of sanitary employees are maintained. The question of taking possession of the land and construction of residential house thereto by the petitioner does not and cannot arise. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the other Respondents it is disclosed that at the instance of the Secretary, Municipal Board vide letter No. MB-5-37-90-4371 dated 25.7.1990 addressed to the Chief Secretary, A & N Admn. and by letter No. 67- 71-MB-5102 dated 26.9.1990 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner it has been conveyed that a piece of land measuring about 200 sq. m located behind the Govt. and by letter No. 67- 71-MB-5102 dated 26.9.1990 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner it has been conveyed that a piece of land measuring about 200 sq. m located behind the Govt. quarter and facing in front of the shop of M/s. Sadasivan towards the Labour barrack on which a site office of Port Blair Municipal Board is functioning and it has been regularised in favour of Smt. Rohini Amma daughter of Shri Veeraraghavelu, Municipal Councilor. On receipt of complaint from the Secretary, Municipal Board, a case was registered against Smt. Rohini Amma and the case in respect of regularisation of encroachment has been reviewed. Smt. Rohini Amma, who encroached in Plot No. 64/P and 189/5 measuring an area of 200 sq. m. obtained a licence, and it is alleged that her licence was issued erroneously. The Tahsildar, Port Blair VI as asked to submit a report on the complaint filed by the Municipal Board. The Tahsildar reported that at the site rearing S. No. 98/P being total area 431 sq. m. situated at Hadde village, the Port Blair Municipal Board has occupied an area of 150 sq. m. to which they have a site office. In such circumstances the licence was issued erroneously and a notice was issued to the petitioner requiring her to appear before the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) and a copy of the notice was been annexed. On the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Port Blair, before the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) and the recommendations of the Review Committed. The Lt. Governor, A & N islands, cancelled the licence and after getting the approval, the order was communicated to the petitioner. The order of cancellation was made by the same authority which made the allotment of regularisation of encroachment. 6. Mr. Roy, Ld. advocate, Appearing for the Writ petitioner, has challenged the impugned order. Although in the Writ petition it is stayed that the impugned order was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no notice was served upon the Writ petitioner, but, in fact, it appeals from the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition by Respondent No. 1 that a notice was issued to the petitioner requesting her to appear in his office on 26.10.1990 at 0.30 A.M. alongwith all relevant documents in support of her claim for regularisation of land occupied prior to 1978. The copy of the said notice is annexed R. 6 at page 27 of the affidavit-in-opposition. By further affirmation, Smt. Rohini Amma failed to produce any record as to her possession prior to 1978 and the earlier licence was cancelled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present-writ petition Mr. Roy, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the impugned notice followed by the order are bad in law. He has developed his argument by drawing the attention of the Court to the judgment reported in (1) AIR 1971 Calcutta page 451 (Satish Chandra Barman v. State of West Bengal and Others). The case was relating to suo motu revision under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. This is with regard to the scope of section 44(a) as to revision of the record of right by suo motu proceeding by the Revenue Officer. By applying the ratio of the decision, Mr. Roy, Ld. Advocate contended that the impugned notice in the present case is bad in nature and by the said barren notice the authorities cannot initiate any review proceeding. The attention of the Court has been drawn to a case reported in (2) AIR 1975 SC page 42 (S. N. Banerjee v. Charge Officer). By considering the scope of order 47 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for review. The Assistant Settlement Officer proceeded as to an endowment early, and the act of subsequent Assistant Settlement Officer having concurrent jurisdiction, cannot re-open it. In order to re-open the case it was found inter alia that where the Assistant Settlement Officer had decided the nature of endowment by going into the evidence and that the endowment was assessed and had directed the record to be corrected accordingly. Admitting, the endowment as made exclusively for religious purposes, and then the next Assistant Settlement Officer having concurrent jurisdiction bas no authority to take for review and re-open the proceedings under rule 14. Further, attention of this Court has been drawn to the judgment reported in AIR 1971 Cal page 451 (Satish Chandra Barman v. West Bengal Govt. and Others). The said case relates exercise of suo motu power by a Revenue Officer for review. The period of limitation has been prescribed in the Acts to exercise suo motu power by the Revenue Officer. 7. Mr. Roy, Ld. Advocate has referred to an unreported judgment of Hon'ble Mr. and Others). The said case relates exercise of suo motu power by a Revenue Officer for review. The period of limitation has been prescribed in the Acts to exercise suo motu power by the Revenue Officer. 7. Mr. Roy, Ld. Advocate has referred to an unreported judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. K. Mazumder in C.R. No. 17(W) of 1991 (3) (Smt. Mariya v. Lt. Governor & Others). By the said judgment the order of cancellation of licence has been set aside but it was made clear that the said order would not prevent the Respondents from initiating any fresh enquiry on the basis of fresh materials upon giving further opportunity of hearing of the petitioner is pursuance of law. 8. Mr. Roy, Ld. Advocate, has emphasized that the impugned notice does not indicate the scope of review and the impugned order suffers from inherent defects and the petitioner was not given the opportunity of hearing. Besides, the authority has no right to review an order made so lightly. 9. Mr. R. Shiv Saroop, Govt. Pleader for the Respondents/Administration has submitted that under Regulation 146 of the A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations 1966 and Rules, 1968, the Chief Commissioner may grant a licence in writing to any person to occupy any land to such extent and for such purpose as may be prescribed. The licence was granted as per the report that the petitioner was in occupation of the land prior to December 1978. In the present case a proper notice was given to the petitioner and by satisfying the materials on record, the impugned order has been made. There is nothing wrong to interfere with the same. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Chapter IV of the A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation 1966. In the present case a proper notice was given to the petitioner and by satisfying the materials on record, the impugned order has been made. There is nothing wrong to interfere with the same. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Chapter IV of the A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation 1966. It provides that under Regulation 34(1) every Revenue Officer may, either of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors-in-office and pass such order is reference thereto as he thinks fit : Provided that : (i) No order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested to appear and opportunity has been given to them for being heard; (ii) No order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall be reviewed; (iii) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the date of order : 34(2). No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code on Civil Procedure, 1908. (3) For the purposes of this section, the Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any revenue office, who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a revenue officer and to whom there is no successor in the district. 10. In the instant case, the authority which has granted the licence has the right to review provided it acts strictly in terms of Regulation 34(1) & (2) as indicated. The review may be made on the ground that there is error apparent in the fact of the record or that there is discovery or new material which was not available at the time of passing the earlier order. The petitioner cannot feel aggrieved as she has not produced any evidence s to the reasonable possession of the property prior to 1.12.1978 and the Municipal Board is actually in possession of the property. The petitioner cannot feel aggrieved as she has not produced any evidence s to the reasonable possession of the property prior to 1.12.1978 and the Municipal Board is actually in possession of the property. Moreover, the petitioner seems to be the daughter of a Municipal Councilor and by irregular means, the previous licence was obtained the same has been revoked accordingly. 11. Mr. Parekh, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the Municipal Board has submitted that the Municipal Board is in possession of a portion of land it has its site office thereon. The petitioner cannot obtain licence over the said land. 12. Having heard the Ld. Lawyers of the respective parties, this Court finds that admittedly a licence was granted in favour of the petitioner under A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation. Upon the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the Regulation also this Court is of the view that the authorities have the right to review the case. But the statutory acts have to be done in the manner as provided in the Statute. In case of AIR 1971 Calcutta Page 451 (Supra), A. K. Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to consider the notice issued by the Revenue Authority to rectify the revision of record of right by suo motu proceedings. In such a case the notice should have been given clearly disclosing the steps to be taken. In this regard the expression of barren notice was observed. In the present case, it is challenged that by the impugned notice which is annexure R-6 of affidavit-in-opposition there is no clear indication that the Authority concerned wants to review the earlier order or that there has been any irregularity or illegality in obtaining the licence. This Court is of the clear view that the Authorities while considering review of any order of revision of any authority under A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation 1966 and Rules, 1968, will have to indicate clearly the intention and prima facie reasons on the basis thereof, the review may be proposed. The notice must be clear for proposed review and prima facie irregularity or illegality if any. The notice must be clear for proposed review and prima facie irregularity or illegality if any. This Court is constrained to observe that the Revenue Authorities are neither serious to grant licence and to review the order seriously by taking all effective steps in terms of the connected Regulations and Rule. The Revenue Authority of Andaman and Nicobar Administration is a creature of law. It has to act within the bounds of law. Any arbitrary capricious and over jealous action will have civil consequences. In the present case this Court finds that in the impugned notice there is no indication of such steps for review or revision of the earlier order. The impugned order, it is contended, is for non-production of records prior to 31st December, 1978. Once the licence is granted, the licences has no obligation to show the foundation of the grant of licence and to prove thereof. It has to be shown that the petitioner has suppressed the facts or there is any practice of fraud or that there is any illegality or irregularity to obtain the licence. There must be a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the authority in this behalf. This Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and finds that the Respondent authorities have the right to review and the Municipal Board is competent to get the licence where the Municipal Board is actually in possession of land but a proper notice of review has to be given and in the said background, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and the Municipal Board is accordance with law. This Court is also of the view that the impugned order suffers from the defects in as much as the petitioner had not full opportunity to meet the proposed steep for review. Besides review, if available has to be made on the ground as envisaged under order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and as to error apparent on the fact of the record and discovery of new materials. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed in part by quashing the impugned order of cancellation of licence. Besides review, if available has to be made on the ground as envisaged under order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and as to error apparent on the fact of the record and discovery of new materials. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed in part by quashing the impugned order of cancellation of licence. The matter should be heard afresh within a period of 6 months by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Municipal Board and the authorities concerned may take a decision in accordance with law if it is found ultimately that the petitioner does not fulfil all the terms as per the Scheme to obtain licence as to the regularisation of encroachment. This Court has not struck down the impugned notice only because all the relevant facts are already known to the parties. Status quo to be maintained till the fresh decision is taken. Certified copy to be given within 4 weeks from the date of application.