Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 453 (CAL)

Chief Secretary v. C. Radhamaniamma

2013-07-16

MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2013
Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. Although the matter is appearing under the heading application, by consent of Mr.Nadeem Akhtar Khan, learned advocate for the appellants and, Mr.Hem Raj Bahadur, learned advocate for the respondent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing for final disposal. All formalities are dispensed with. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated July 13th, 2012, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.1300 of 2010. By order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, inter alia, directing the respondent No.2 in the writ petition to make an enquiry, as to whether the writ petitioner was holding any land over and above what was recorded in the name of the co-operative society concerned. In the event, the writ petitioner has been holding excess land, the writ petitioner was directed to surrender the same immediately. After such surrender of additional land by the writ petitioner, the respondent No.2 in the writ petition, was directed to record the name of the writ petitioner as a tenant in respect of the land in survey No.63/1 at Haddo village, Port Blair Tehsil, which was devolved upon her in terms of the Will duly probated by the competent court of law, excepting a portion, which has been the subject matter of Title Suit No.15 of 2000. The land in question in survey No.63/1 at Haddo village, Port Blair Tehsil, measuring an area of 8205 square meters, was allotted in favour of Subhash Colonization Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited. One of the trustees of the said Society executed a registered deed of conveyance in favour of N. Raghavan Pillai, since deceased, the father and the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner. The Administration, on the basis of such transfer, recorded the name of N. Raghavan Pillai in the records of rights. The authorities rose from slumber after sometime and initiated a proceeding under Regulation 151 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, asking the said N. Raghavan Pillai to show cause as to why he would not be evicted from the land in question. A writ petition was filed challenging the said proceedings. The authorities rose from slumber after sometime and initiated a proceeding under Regulation 151 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, asking the said N. Raghavan Pillai to show cause as to why he would not be evicted from the land in question. A writ petition was filed challenging the said proceedings. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court in FMAT No.1009 of 1995 held that it was clear that the long standing possession of N. Raghavan Pillai was accepted by the Administration as lawful possession. It was held, further, that though N. Raghavan Pillai was not a recorded tenant, but he must be accepted as in lawful possession by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The Hon’ble Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that the impact of removal of the name of N.Raghavan Pillai from the records was impliedly effaced and, he was treated as lawful occupant of the land in question under the Administration. N. Raghavan Pillai died. Before his death, he executed his said last Will and Testament bequeathing the property in favour of the writ petitioner. The application for probate was filed before the competent court. The probate was granted. Thus, the property devolved upon the writ petitioner. She approached the authorities for permission for transfer of the inherited land to third party. Such prayers were rejected and she was constrained to approach this Court and the administration from time to time. Finally, by order dated March 17th, 2001, the respondent No.2 in the writ petition rejected her prayer on the grounds that the land in question was not recorded in the name of the writ petitioner or her deceased father and, the writ petitioner was in possession of excess land, which she was required to surrender under Regulation 168 of the said Regulations of 1966. However, there has been an order of injunction in Title Suit No.15 of 2000 pending between the writ petitioner and one Bala chandran Nair in respect of a portion of the disputed land. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after contested hearing, allowed the writ petition, holding that there was no escape from the conclusion that N. Raghavan Pillai was treated as lawful occupant under the Administration for all practical purposes though his name was not entered in lieu of the Society in the revenue record of rights. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after contested hearing, allowed the writ petition, holding that there was no escape from the conclusion that N. Raghavan Pillai was treated as lawful occupant under the Administration for all practical purposes though his name was not entered in lieu of the Society in the revenue record of rights. Therefore, the Hon’ble Single Judge thought that justice would be sub-served if the respondent No.2 in the writ petition, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, held an enquiry as to whether the petitioner has been holding the land over and above what was recorded in the name of the society. In the event the petitioner has been holding additional land, the petitioner would surrender such excess land immediately to the authorities in terms of Regulation 168 of the said Regulations, 1966. It was, further, directed that upon such surrender of the additional land, if any, the respondent No.2 in the writ petition, would forth with record the name of the writ petitioner as a tenant in respect of the land in survey No.63/1, as aforesaid, excepting a portion, which has been the subject matter of Title Suit No.15 of 2000. Thereafter, the authorities were directed to consider her prayer for grant of permission to transfer the disputed land in favour of a third party. In the backdrops of the factual matrix, we are of the opinion that the Hon’ble Single Judge did not exercise his discretion erroneously. We are at one with the Hon’ble Single Judge that the Administration has accepted the right, title and interest of N. Raghavan Pillai for all practical purposes. It is, now, too late for the Administration to raise any objection to the claim of the legatee under the last Will and Testament of N. Raghavan Pillai. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The connected application for stay becomes infructuous and, is, also, dismissed. We, however, make no order as costs. Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J. I agree.