JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, ACJ. : In this reference which has been placed before this Court in view of the difference of opinion between two learned Judges Ruma Pal and B. Bhattacharjee, JJ. in their judgment dated 15/06/1999. However the learned Judges while differing in their opinion did not formulate the points of difference in terms of clause 36 of the Letters of Patent. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Judges and as also with the consent of the learned counsels the points of differences between the learned Judges be formulated in the following terms:- Whether in the facts and circumstance of this case the writ petitioner appellant was entitled to the benefit of the scheme framed by the Administrator in the year 1966 or the scheme framed in the year 1987? (Satyabrata Sinha, ACJ) 2. This reference raises an interesting question as regard the applicability of policy decision adopted by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Administration) as regard the regularisation of encroachment made by the inhabitants of these islands. The admitted facts are:- The writ petitioner-appellant herein encroached upon 800 sq. mtrs. of Govt. land in the survey No. 2560 situated at South Point prior to 1961. A survey was conducted in 1961 wherein he was found to be in possession of 800 sq. mtrs of Govt. land. It is not in dispute that in terms of Regulation 3 of A & N Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926 all land in A & N Islands vested absolutely in His Majesty and save as provided by or under the said Regulation, no person shall be deemed to have acquired any property therein or any right to or over the same by occupation, prescription or conveyance or in any other manner whatsoever except by a conveyance executed by or under the authority of the Central Government. Regulation 4 of the 1926 Regulation also authorised the Provincial Government to make grants but no such grant was permitted to be made without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Andaman and Nicobar islands after coming into force of the Constitution was a Part-D State. After the enactment of Constitution 7th Amendment, it became Part-C State. In terms of Article 239 of the Constitution of India, the President who had exclusive power of the Administration, appointed Chief Commissioner as an Administrator. The Andaman and Nicobar islands after coming into force of the Constitution was a Part-D State. After the enactment of Constitution 7th Amendment, it became Part-C State. In terms of Article 239 of the Constitution of India, the President who had exclusive power of the Administration, appointed Chief Commissioner as an Administrator. However, by a notification issued in the year 1982, the President of India appointed the Lieutenant Governor as an Administrator in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Articles 239 (1) and 243 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that in terms of the said provisions the Administration vests in the said President and by reason of the power of delegation, the Lieutenant Governor merely exercise such function as may be assigned to him by the President. Article 240 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to make regulation for the peace, progress and good Government of the inter alia, the UT of A & N Islands. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said power the President of India promulgated a regulation known as Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 being No.2 of 1966. The said Regulation was promulgated with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, powers of revenue officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land, land tenures and other matters relating to land in the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 3. By reason of Regulation 211 of 1966 Regulation, 1926 Regulation stood repeated subject to the conditions referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. 4. It is not in dispute that in view of the aforementioned regulation no person other than whom a grant has been made in terms of 1926 Regulation or 1966 Regulation, has acquire any right in or over the lands which vested absolutely in the Central Government. In fact, Regulation 202 of 1966 Regulation provides for penalty for unauthorised occupation of land which is in the following term:- "202. (1) Any person who unauthorisedly take or remains in possession of any unoccupied land or abadi may be summarily ejected by order of the Tehsildar and any crop which may be standing on the land and any building or other work which he may have constructed thereon, if not, removed by him within such time as the Tehsildar may fix; shall be liable to forfeiture. (2) Any property forfeited under sub-section (1) shall be disposed of in such manner as the Tehsildar may direct and cost of removal of any crop, building or other work and of all works necessary to restore the land to its original condition shall be recoverable form such person as an arrear of land revenue. (3) Such person shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) also be liable, at the discretion of the Tehsildar, to a fine which may extend to Rs. 250/-. (4) The Tehsildar may apply the whole or any part of the fine imposed under sub-section (3) to compensate parsons who may in his opinion have suffered loss or injury from such unauthorised occupation. (5) If, in any case, Tehsildar considers that circumstances of the case warrant imposition of fine exceeding Rs. 250/- he may refer the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall then after giving the party concerned and opportunity of hearing pass such orders in respect of fine as he may deem fit. (6) If any person ordered to be ejected under sub-section (1) has constructed any work of a permanent nature under a bona fide mistake, he may apply to the Deputy Commissioner for condonation of the encroachment and the Deputy Commissioner, may, if satisfied that the work was constructed under a bona fide mistake and that the land can be allowed to be remained in possession of that person without any serious detriment to the public purpose, condone the encroachment under such terms as he may deem fit. (7) No order made under sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from establishing his right in a Civil Court. (8) If notice of an intention to institute a suit is delivered to the Tehsildar, he may desist from carrying out his order under subsection (1) for a period of 3 months and if such suit is filed within such period he shall stayed his proceedings pending the decision of the Civil Court." 5. The said provisions, therefore, lays down a procedure not only for the prosecution of trespasser but also eviction of encroachers. The said provisions, therefore, lays down a procedure not only for the prosecution of trespasser but also eviction of encroachers. Although it is not necessary to consider in this judgment as to whether the Lieutenant Governor had the power to make any policy decision in derogation to the said Regulation, the fact remains that on or about 28th May, 1965 a meeting was held by the Advisory Committee to the Chief Commissioner, the relevant extract of the proceeding whereof reads thus :- "That no encroachment made after 1961 should be regularised, the encroachers in such cases should be evicted in accordance with the law and the land allotted after inviting applications in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The allottee would, however be requirec1 to pay the royality on the timber which had been destroyed in easy annual instalments not exceeding fifteen, the number of instalment depending upon the amount involved and the area allotted. (ii) In respect of encroachments mad prior to 1961 a total area upto 10 acres may be regularised and recorded in the name of the encroacher provided the encroacher agreed to pay the royality in respect of timber destroyed from that area and pay land revenue since the year of occupation and provided he also voluntarily vacated possession of the excess area, since payment of royality in one instalment may entail considerable hardship, the Committee recommended that the royality may be recovered in annual instalments not exceeding ten depending upon the amount involved. If the encroacher did not accept any of these conditions, he may be evicted in accordance with the law and the land allotted to other deserving landless persons in accordance with the procedure laid down in (i) above." 6. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution a memorandum was issued on or about 7.9.1966 which is to the following effect: "The Chief Commissioner, A & N Islands, Port Blair is pleased to order that in pursuance of the decision of the Chief Commissioner Advisory Committee meeting held on the 28th May, 1965 encroachment upto 31.12.1961 are to be accepted and regularised. The Chief Commissioner is further pleased to order that encroachment thereafter (after 31.12.1961) has to be dealt with in accordance with law." 7. Certain modifications admittedly to the aforementioned policy decision were made from time to time with which however, this Court is not concerned in the present case. 8. The Chief Commissioner is further pleased to order that encroachment thereafter (after 31.12.1961) has to be dealt with in accordance with law." 7. Certain modifications admittedly to the aforementioned policy decision were made from time to time with which however, this Court is not concerned in the present case. 8. A notice was issued upon the writ petitioner on 29.3.1982 in the following terms:- "Whereas While conducting survey & settlement operation an area of 705 sq. mtrs. is found under your possession. An extract of the field enquiry report and a copy of the provisional map given as enclosed. You are now required to show cause as to why the finalisation of record shall not be made in your favour only for the area held under your authorised possession and for the area unauthorisedly occupied be set aside and separately proceeded under section 202 of the A & N Islands LR & LRR, 1966, by the competent Revenue Court. Your claims and objections to the finalisation of the record, if any, should be lodged in writing or in person in the Court of the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have no claim/objection to offer and the record of finalisation will be made. Claim/objections, if any, shall be heard by the A.C. (Settlement) on my behalf on 24th, 1982." 9. However, admittedly a High Power Committee was constituted for considering matters afresh and in relation thereto an order bearing No. 608 was issued on 25.09.1987. Pursuent to or in furtherance to a decision taken by the Administration in terms of its letter bearing No. 111-5/66-C dated 07.09.1966, the Assistant Secretary (H & R) issued a letter to Deputy Commissioner of Andaman District, the material portion whereof reads thus :- "It may be recalled that it had been decided by the A & N Administration vide letter No. 111-5/66-C dated 07.09.1966 that while the law contained in section 202 of the A & N Islands LR & LRR, 1966 will take its course in respect of persons unauthorisedly occupying Government land after 31.12.1961, tenancies shall be created In respect of unoccupied lands unauthorisedly taken on or before 31.12.1978. 2. 2. The aforesaid decision of the Administration has been partly modified and it has been decided by the Government that encroachments made in revenue lands upto 31.12.1978 will be regularised in favour of those who were found to be in unauthorised possession of such land from the date prior to 31.12.1978 by the High Power Committee constituted by the Administration vide order No. 4861 dated the 02.10.1982 to the extent noted below :- (a) One hector per family if the lands is used for agricultural purposes. (b) 200 sq. mtrs. per family if the land is used for construction of swalling unit in urban area. (c) 350 sq. mtrs. per family if the lands be used for construction of dwelling units in non-urban areas." 10. Although the petitioner has inter alia, contended that he had filed an application for regularisation in the year 1973, he could not establish the said fact. Undisputedly, however, he applied for regularisation on 17.08.1988, whence 1987 scheme had already been introduced. An inspection was again made by the Revenue Inspector whereupon it was found that the appellant was in possession of 800 sq. mtrs of Govt. land at South Point. His name also appeared in the list of the encroachers produced before the High Power Committee. 11. The appellant-petitioner filed a writ application in the year 1991 which was disposed of by S.C. Sen J. (as His Lordship then was) upon issuing certain direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders. Another writ petition was filed by the appellant petitioner in this Court which was marked as Cr. A. 36 (W) of 1993 and was disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner to treat the writ petition as a representation and take decision thereupon within a period of 8 weeks. As the said order was not complied, three contempt applications were filed wherein several directions have been issued. During the pendency of the third contempt petition an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 28.12.1994, regularising his settlement to the extent of 200 sq. mtrs. in terms of the 1987 scheme. The said order was the subject matter of the writ application which was marked as W.P. 23 (W) of 1996 and the same was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the appellant-petitioner. mtrs. in terms of the 1987 scheme. The said order was the subject matter of the writ application which was marked as W.P. 23 (W) of 1996 and the same was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the appellant-petitioner. As indicated hereinbefore in the said appeal, the learned Judges differed in their opinion, Ruma Pal, J. in her judgment, inter alia, held: (i) 1987 Scheme did not supercede the 1966 scheme but it only partly modified the same; (ii) 1987 Scheme did not affect the rights accrued under 1966 Scheme; (iii) 1987 Scheme was prospective in nature; and in support of the said opinion, reliance has been made of P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 ; (iv) By reason of 1987 Scheme the rights of pre-1961 encroachers are not affected. Bhaskar Bhattacharjee, J. on the other hand, held; (1) so long 1966 sheme was followed any encroacher of Govt. land could avoid summary ejectment by applying for tenancy on conditions laid down therein; (ii) The object of 1987 Scheme was to recover the land in excess of 200 sq. mtrs. from the hands of trespassers and to utilise the excess lands for the purpose of solving the accommodation problem without taking drastic step against the wrongful occupiers who have in wrongful occupation for about 10 years by invoking Regulation 202 of the Regulation, 1966; (iii) The writ petitioner had chosen to continue as a trespasser without payment of revenue and not to surrender before the Government, the land under the said scheme and thus the question of any discrimination does not arise; (iv) The regularisation of encroachment of Govt. land being hedged by conditions no right accmes unless application therefor is filed and conditions laid down therefor are fulfilled. 12. Ms. Ganguli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter aila, submits that a bare perusal of 1987 scheme would clearly show that a bare perusal of 1987 scheme would clearly show that thereby only a modification has been made in terms whereof the scheme relating to pre1961 encroachment had been replaced by pre-1978 encroachment. According to the learned counsel by reason of occupation of the said land for a long period the appellant acquired right in terms of 1966 scheme or otherwise. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on a recent Division Bench decision in the Lt. According to the learned counsel by reason of occupation of the said land for a long period the appellant acquired right in terms of 1966 scheme or otherwise. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on a recent Division Bench decision in the Lt. Governor, A & N Islands & Ors. vs. Smt. Kulsum Bibi being M.A.6 of 1999 disposed of on 27.09.1999. The learned counsel adopted the other reasonings of Ruma Pal, J. in support of her submissions. 13. Mr. R.S. Saroop and Mr. A.K. Ray, the ld. counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that while it may be true that by reason of 1987 scheme, 1966 scheme was not superceded altogether but in a case of this nature the same was applied as a modified scheme. According to the learned counsels it is incorrect to contend that modification was in relation to the period only but in fact in terms of 1987 scheme several modifications had been made as would appear from paragraph 2 thereof. 14. The question which, thus, arises for consideration in this reference is as to whether the petitioner-appellant was entitled to retain 800 sq. mtrs. of land in terms of 1966 scheme. 15. The statute law as also the common law, do not encourage trespass. Trespassers acquire no right in the land belonging to others except by way of prescription. The 1926 Regulation as also the 1966 Regulation provide for ejectment of trespassers. Regulation 38 of 1966 Regulation reads thus: "38. (1) All land in the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is vested absolutely in the Govt. land, and, save as provided by or under this Regulation, no person shall be deemed to have acquired any property therein or any right to or over the same by occupation, prescription or conveyance or in any other manner whatsoever, except by a conveyance executed by or under the authority of the Government. (2) The right to all trees, brush wood, jungles or other natural product wherever growing, except in so far as the same may be the property of any person, vests in the Govt. (2) The right to all trees, brush wood, jungles or other natural product wherever growing, except in so far as the same may be the property of any person, vests in the Govt. and such trees, brush wood, jungles or other natural product shall be preserved or disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed keeping in view the interests of the people the area with regard to the user of the natural products. (3) All such trees which have been planted and reared by or under the orders, or at the expense of the Govt. and all trees which have been planted and reared at the expense of any local authority by the side of any road belonging to the Govt. shall vests in the Government. (4) Where a dispute arises in respect of any right under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) such dispute shall be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. (5) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (4) may institute a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. (6) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (5) against any order, such order shall not be subject to appeal or revision under this Regulation". 16. Exam on general principles, in terms of Limitation Act, 1908, a person could acquired a right by prescription in or over the land belonging to the State only if he had been in continuous possession there over for a period of more than 60 years whereas in terms of Limitation Act, 1963, the said period was reduced to 30 years. 17. Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that right of the real owner of the land stands extinguished only in the event, a trespasser acquires a right by prescription. 18. As indicated hereinbefore, although it is not necessary for this Court to address itself to the question as to whether the Lt. Governor and/or any High Power Committee could exercise its jurisdiction in derogation of 1966 Regulation which was admittedly promulgated by the President of India conferred upon Article 240 of the Constitution, the controversial point may be considered in the aforementioned background. 19. The Lieutenant Governor is merely a person delegated with functions of an Administrator in terms of Article 239 of the Constitution of India. 19. The Lieutenant Governor is merely a person delegated with functions of an Administrator in terms of Article 239 of the Constitution of India. He had not been conferred any power to make any law which is exclusively within the domain of the President. However, he can issue executive instructions in such fields and in respect of the matter which is not covered by any legislation. An executive instruction issued or a policy decision taken in favour of a trespasser would be subject to fulfilment of the conditions imposed thereby. Undoubtedly the same can be modified, amended or rescinded. A policy decision taken may even be withdrawn. The 1966 scheme was not rescinded but as has been admitted by the learned counsel for the parties as also by the learned Judges, the same stood modified. In one sense the modification was in favour of the trespassers, inasmuch as, by using the word 'pre-1978 no limitation has now been placed as was in the case of 1966 scheme whereunder regularisation could only be made in respect of pre1961 trespassers. However, it will not be correct to contend that the modification was only with regard to the period of encroachment but the same also extended to the conditions laid down therein. One of such condition was the area of the land. Whereas in terms of the 1966 scheme encroachment upto 10 acres could be regularised but by reason of clause 2 of 1987 scheme regularisation could be made only to the extent of 200 sq. mtrs. per family, inter alia, if the land is used for construction of dwelling unit in urban area. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the paragraph 2 of the aforementioned letter dated 17/08/97 clearly states the decision of the High Power Committee that regularisation would be made to the extent noted therein. 20. A trespasser remains a trespasser unless the same is regularised, only because the scheme for regularisation of trespass was framed the same by itself did not confer any right upon the trespassers to obtain regularisation unless conditions precedent therefor were fulfilled. A trespasser in whose favour no order of regularisation has been passed continued to be subjected to the provisions laid down under section 202 of the 1966 Regulation. 21. It is no doubt true that such scheme will be prospective in nature. A trespasser in whose favour no order of regularisation has been passed continued to be subjected to the provisions laid down under section 202 of the 1966 Regulation. 21. It is no doubt true that such scheme will be prospective in nature. In view of the fact that the administration admittedly had a power to review, modify, amend or rescind its earlier policy decisions it can impose fresh conditions also. By reason of 1966 scheme or 1987 scheme an exception has been made in favour of the ancroachers. Those persons who intend to take the benefits of such exception must fulfil the conditions laid down and satisfy the Court to the aforementioned effect. As the conditions laid down under the exceptions provided for in 1966 scheme remained unfulfilled, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petitioner-appellant did not acquire any right whatsoever. His case was required to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner at a point of time when an application therefor was filed by him which having been filed after coming into force of 1987 scheme, the same was to be governed thereby and not by 1966 scheme. By applying the conditions laid down under 1987 scheme the Deputy Commissioner was not giving, retrospective effect to 1987 scheme as by the time, said application was filed by the petitioner -appellant, a modified scheme has already came into force. 22. In P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka, ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ) the Apex Court was considering a service matter. In that case the recruitment process started under the rules which stood amended during continuation thereof as a result of which the petitioner became unqualified for consideration. It is in that situation the Apex Court held that when the selection process had already started and the petitioner was qualified in terms of the old rules which was prevailing at that point of time, his case will be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly had filed an application after 1987 scheme came into force. If he had slept over his right, if any, for a long time and did not make any attempt to get the benefits of 1966 scheme, he alone was to be blamed therefor. 23. In the Lt. Governor & Ors. vs. Smt. Kulsum Bibi whereupon as noticed hereinbefore, Ms. If he had slept over his right, if any, for a long time and did not make any attempt to get the benefits of 1966 scheme, he alone was to be blamed therefor. 23. In the Lt. Governor & Ors. vs. Smt. Kulsum Bibi whereupon as noticed hereinbefore, Ms. Ganguli has placed strong reliance, the following arguments before the Division Bench were advanced : "Accordingly it was argued that the Provincial Government i.e. Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration had no power to make grants of the disputed lands in favour of the petitioner without previous sanction of Central Government on the basis of her alleged possession of the same in the year 1961, i.e. prior to promulgation of 1966 Regulation and therefore, the policy decision dated 7th September, 1966 to regularise the unauthorised occupations in the year 1961 without any sanction and/or approval of the same by the Central Government cannot have any application in the facts and circumstances of this case." 24. The same was negatived by the learned Judges stating: "We are of the view that aforesaid argument is totally misplaced. It is not in dispute that the scheme dated 17th August, 1987 for disposal of Government lands in revenue villages unauthorisedly occupied on or before 31st December, 1978 and for creation of tenancies in respect of such lands was approved by the Central Government. Rather the case of the respondent/Administration is that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of lands upto 200 sq. mtrs. out of the entire disputed lands pursuent to such scheme of 1987. If that be so it is evident that the scheme as framed vide letter No. 111-5/66-C dated 7th September, 1966 for creation of tenancies in respect of unoccupied lands unauthorisedly taken on or before 31st December, 1961 was embodied in the scheme as aforesaid framed on 17th August, 1987 and made a part thereof. It is nobody's case that the scheme as framed in 1966 as above was beyond the competence of the authority concerned. Therefore, the scheme as framed in 1966 stood impliedly approved by the Central Government even if it was not approved formally and/or independently. Thus the contention of the respondent/Administration does not hold good. No other points were raised before us." 25. Therefore, the scheme as framed in 1966 stood impliedly approved by the Central Government even if it was not approved formally and/or independently. Thus the contention of the respondent/Administration does not hold good. No other points were raised before us." 25. Before the Division Bench thus neither any argument which had been made before the learned Judges or before this court has been made for the question raised herein had arisen for consideration. 26. In Kulsum Bibi (supra) it appears that the petitioner therein had made constant prayers for regularisation of the encroachment in her favour be granting necessary licence but the respondents did not do so. In fact the said decision proceeds on the basis that the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order had taken into consideration irrelevant factors and the reasons assigned in support thereof could not be proved in that proceedings by producing any material documents. Even no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in that case. The dispute between the parties, centered round the fact as to whether the land in question, was in possession of the petitioner since 1939 or belonged to the Health Department of Administration. As a matter of fact from the records of the case it appears that even the plea of acquisition of right by adverse possession had bee~ raised. Such is not the pesition here. 27. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the decision of the Division Bench in Kulsum Bibi cannot be said to be a precedent on the question raised before this court. 28. A decision is not an authority for the prepostion which was not argued. A decision, as a statute. The ratio of the decision has to be rulled out from the factual back-drop involved therein. In Jaya Sen vs. Sujit Kumar Sarkar, reported in AIR 1998 Cal 288 , it was held: "27. It is now well known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well known that even a slight distinction in face or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision -making process. See Quinn vs. Lealhain (1900-1903) AER (Rep) 1, Krishna Kumar vs. Union of Inida, 1990 (4) SCC 207 , ( AIR 1990 SC 1782 ), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Co. It is also well known that even a slight distinction in face or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision -making process. See Quinn vs. Lealhain (1900-1903) AER (Rep) 1, Krishna Kumar vs. Union of Inida, 1990 (4) SCC 207 , ( AIR 1990 SC 1782 ), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1993 SC 43 ; (1993 Tax LR 58), Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1766 , and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, reported in 1988 (1) SCC 101 : ( AIR 1989 SC 38 ). 28. It, is also a settled law that a decision is not an authority on a point which was not argued. See Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 203 ." 29. For the reasons aforementioned I agree with the view of Bhaskar Bhattacharjee, J. and with great respect I regret my inability to agree with the views of the Ruma Pal, J. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, this appeal stands dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. 30. Miss Ganguli appearing for the appellant-petitioner prays for staty of operation of this order and judgment. The same is considered and refused. Appeal dismissed.