Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 735 (CAL)

Ronak Ali v. Lieutenant Governor

2012-08-07

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2012
Judgment Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1983 he was granted a licence by the respondent no.2 in respect of a certain land at Prothrapur village along with 923 other persons. At the time of making an inquiry regarding handing over of possession it was detected that the alleged land fell within the boundary of the Central Agricultural Research Institution. The same was the fate of 186 persons out of 923 allottees. Subsequently, the High Court on a writ petition filed by another allottee inter alia directed the respondents to frame a scheme for giving an alternative site to the petitioner of that writ petition in lieu of the land allotted to him. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to land in terms of the said scheme; but no such land was actually allotted to him. He, therefore, had filed a writ petition in the year 2010 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by giving direction upon the respondent no.2 to allot land in accordance with the scheme in the event the Deputy Commissioner after inquiry found that the writ petitioner did not have any land in his name or in the name of his spouse and he had not been allotted alternative land in lieu of the original allotment. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 12 weeks and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter. Pursuant to the said direction the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman district, considered the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled to get the allotment of any alternative land as his father along with three others were recorded licensees in respect of a land situated at Phoenix Bay. It was also recorded that the father-in-law of the petitioner was also a recorded licensee in respect of a house at Tusnabad village under Ferrargunj Tehsil. The said authority was of the view that after the death of his father the petitioner would get a share in his father’s properties. Similarly, after death of his father-in-law his wife will also get a share in respect of the house recorded in favour of her father. The said authority was of the view that after the death of his father the petitioner would get a share in his father’s properties. Similarly, after death of his father-in-law his wife will also get a share in respect of the house recorded in favour of her father. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, turned down the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner or his wife was not a landless person as he/she will be getting a share of the landed property by inheritance. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman district, has been challenged in the writ petition. This application has been contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition stipulated in the scheme and was not eligible for allotment of an alternative land. One of the conditions of the said scheme was furnishing of documentary evidence regarding filing of the representation for alternative allotment within 12 years of allotment i.e. the year 1983. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner had not filed his claim within 12 years from the date of his allotment and as such he was not eligible as per the scheme. Moreover, the father of the petitioner has already expired and the petitioner has inherited the share of his father’s property. The argument regarding the future inheritance on the death of the father-in-law was also repeated in the affidavit. It was however admitted that the Revenue field staff committed a mistake in allotting the plot of land to the petitioner on a portion of the land which was already allotted to the Central Agricultural Research Institution in 1971. This mistake was detected at the time of handing over of physical possession. The order impugned in the writ petition is a patently unjust one. Merely because the father or the father-in-law of the petitioner has/had a plot of land, the petitioner could not be denied the same. That was never a condition contemplated in the scheme. The Deputy Commissioner had rejected the claim of the petitioner on a ground which does not find place in the scheme itself. Recording of any plot of land in favour of the father or the father-in-law was never a condition contemplated by the scheme as a factor disentitling the petitioner to get an allotment of a plot of land. The Deputy Commissioner had rejected the claim of the petitioner on a ground which does not find place in the scheme itself. Recording of any plot of land in favour of the father or the father-in-law was never a condition contemplated by the scheme as a factor disentitling the petitioner to get an allotment of a plot of land. The father or the father-in-law of an applicant may hold a piece of land and they must one day die, but that does not disentitle an applicant to successfully maintain an application for allotment of land. The Administration cannot deny to an applicant his right to get allotment of a plot of land if he is otherwise entitled to under the scheme on a specious ground that one day his father will die and he will inherit a share in the said plot or on the death of his father-in-law his spouse will inherit her share in her father’s property. The Deputy Commissioner while passing this order was oblivious of the fact that on the death of the father or father-in-law the said plot of land might not have remained in their respective hands or they might have bequeathed the property to anybody other than the petitioner. The affidavit used by the respondents now mentions that the father of the petitioner has expired and therefore he is no longer a landless person. This contention once again must fail. The relevant date with reference to which the entitlement of an applicant has to be judged is the date of the application. If the authorities do not make any allotment in time and if considerable time is spent thereafter an applicant may certainly acquire a piece of land by inheritance. The Administration cannot sit over the rightful claim of an applicant for years together, allowing his father to expire and then come up with the plea that he has inherited a share in his father’s estate and has forfeited his right to get an allotment. The State cannot take this stand to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner. That apart, it cannot be lost sight of that it was because of the mistake committed by the employees of the State that the petitioner could not be handed over physical possession of the plot of land which was allotted to him. The State cannot take this stand to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner. That apart, it cannot be lost sight of that it was because of the mistake committed by the employees of the State that the petitioner could not be handed over physical possession of the plot of land which was allotted to him. The other contention regarding absence of documentary evidence is also equally without much force. It appears from Annexure P-3 to the writ petition that the petitioner had written a letter to the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil praying for demarcation of the house site. On this letter the Tehsildar made an endorsement forwarding the case to the Deputy Commissioner for allotment of alternative land along with 186 persons. From Annexure P-4 it further appears that the petitioner had prayed for allotment of another house site. This letter is dated April 11, 1989 and the official endorsement on it showed that it was sent to ACSA. Thus, the contentions of the respondents are belied that they did not lodge any representation for alternative allotment within 12 years from the initial allotment of a plot of land. That apart this contention of the respondents is clearly an afterthought. This was never mentioned as a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s case by the Deputy Commissioner in the order impugned in the writ petition. The order impugned in the writ petition had rejected the petitioner’s case merely on the ground that the petitioner’s father and father-in-law possessed a piece of land. Lack of documentary evidence with regard to representation never surfaced in the order impugned. Now, the respondents cannot be allowed to project this also as a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s case. The respondents have taken an alternative stand to defeat the petitioner’s claim. The purpose is obvious. But they cannot be allowed to do so. They cannot be allowed to improve their case at stages. Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to be covered by the Scheme framed for the specific purpose and to get an allotment of a piece of land. The respondents have not been able to make out any case disentitling the petitioner from getting an allotment in terms of the scheme framed by the authorities. Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to be covered by the Scheme framed for the specific purpose and to get an allotment of a piece of land. The respondents have not been able to make out any case disentitling the petitioner from getting an allotment in terms of the scheme framed by the authorities. The writ petition stands allowed by directing the respondents to hand over an alternative plot of land to the petitioner under the scheme so framed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is thus allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.