Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 360 (CAL)

Shri Ronak Ali v. The Lieutenant Governor

2011-03-14

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2011
JUDGMENT :- Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The petitioner was one of those 923 persons who were allotted house sites at Prothrapur Village under Port Blair Tehsil during the year 1983 Vide Revenue Case No.313 of 83 (DC). In fact, licences were also issued to such allottees in respect of their respective allotments. Subsequently, at the time of handing over possession of the licensed land to those allottees in 1983, it was detected that some portion of the licensed land was earlier allotted to CARI. As a result thereof, possession of such licensed land could not be handed over to 186 persons out of those 923 persons. The petitioner was one of such ill fated person out of those 186 persons as possession of his licensed land could not be delivered to him. Subsequently, the A & N Islands Administration formulated a scheme in pursuance of the direction passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.28 of 2007 (Shri V.G. Krishnan v. the Lt. Governor & Ors.) for providing alternative land to those persons to whom physical possession of land at Prothrapur could not be delivered in 1983. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to get allotment of the alternative land in terms of the said scheme as the petitioner is a landless person and does not have any land recorded either in his own name or in the name of the spouse and further no other alternative land was allotted to him in lieu of the original allotment. Since the alternative allotment was not given to the petitioner under the said scheme, the petitioner earlier moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 563 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court in the Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on 14th September, 2010 whereby the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District was directed to examine the claim of the petitioner upon giving him an opportunity of hearing with a further rider that if on examination of the petitioner’s claim it is found that he does not have allotment of any other land in his own name or in the name of the spouse or that he has not been allotted any other alternative land in lieu of original allotted land then he shall be given allotment of the proposed land in accordance with the said scheme. The entire exercise in this regard was directed to be completed within 12 weeks from the date of communication of His Lordship’s said order. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by his Lordship, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District considered the claim of the petitioner and ultimately held that the petitioner is not entitled to get allotment of any alternative land as his father along with three others are the recorded licensees in respect of a land situated at Phoenix Bay village under Port Blair Tehsil and his father-in-law is also a recorded licensee of another house site situated at Tusnabad village under Ferrargunj Tehsil. The Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman was of the view that since on the death of the petitioner’s father he will inherit certain shares in the property of his father and further since the wife of the petitioner will also inherit some share in the property of her father on his death, the petitioner is not entitled to get any allotment of alternative land under the said scheme. The legality and/or validity of the said decision of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, appearing at page 60 of the writ petition is under challenge in this writ petition before this Court. On reading the order impugned this Court is of the view that the impugned order is absolutely a perverse order which no man of ordinary prudence and having little common sense can arrive at. The scheme which was formulated by the Administration for allotment of the alternative site does not provide that such allotment will not be given to those persons whose father and/or father-in-law holds any land and/or house site in A & N Islands. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the said authority on the ground as mentioned above, was made absolutely for an extraneous consideration by introducing a self framed condition which is absent in the scheme. Before coming to the said conclusion, the said authority never thought as to what would happen if the petitioner’s father and/or his father-in-law transfer their respective lands and/or house site in favour of somebody other than the petitioner either by way of testamentary or nontestamentary document and/or deed. Before coming to the said conclusion, the said authority never thought as to what would happen if the petitioner’s father and/or his father-in-law transfer their respective lands and/or house site in favour of somebody other than the petitioner either by way of testamentary or nontestamentary document and/or deed. This Court further holds that for ascertaining the petitioner’s entitlement under the said Scheme, the said authority was only required to consider as to whether the petitioner and/or his spouse holds any land in A & N Islands and further as to whether any land was allotted to him in lieu of his earlier allotment, and if it was found that the petitioner and/or his spouse did not hold any other land in the Islands and no allotment was made in his favour in lieu of his earlier allotment then the only conclusion which could have been arrived at, was that he was entitled to get allotment of an alternative land under the said scheme, as per the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition. Since this Court finds that the petitioner and/or his spouse does not hold any land in A & N Islands, and further since nothing could be produced before this Court to show that an alternative land was allotted to him in lieu of his earlier allotment, this Court has no hesitation to hold that he is entitled to get coverage under the said scheme. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to hand over an alternative land to the petitioner under the aforesaid scheme positively within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is thus disposed of.