Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 86 (CAL)

Mahendra Das v. Lieutenant Governor

2018-01-11

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that a certain plot of land, which was allotted to him, had been unauthorisedly taken by the respondents for construction of a helipad. 2. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in the year 2001 and the said writ petition was disposed of inter alia directing the Secretary (Revenue) to treat the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On November 27, 2002 the Secretary (Revenue) passed an order directing the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman to go into the details of the case and to finalise the allotment of an alternative plot of land in favour of the petitioner. 3. On a second writ petition filed by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after recoding the submission of the respondents, directed the Tehsildar to demarcate the plot of land which the respondents were willing to hand over and to make over the same to him by February 21, 2007. 4. It is not necessary to give the details of the series of the proceedings one after another initiated by the petitioner for the disposal of the writ petition. Suffice, however, it to say that the land bearing survey No. 119/14 measuring about 0.3940 hectares of land at Maymyo village in the District of South Andaman was allotted in favour of the petitioner and the record entry and the sketch map pertaining to the said land were also issued to him. It is the further case of the petitioner that no physical possession of the same was given to him and the respondent had unilaterally cancelled the allotment without giving him any opportunity of being heard. 5. Thus, the petitioner alleges that the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice. By this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make necessary correction in respect of the record of right and sketch map pertaining to the piece of land as mentioned above by incorporating his name as a recorded tenant and for other reliefs. 6. A very different picture, however, emerges from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. 6. A very different picture, however, emerges from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. It has been admitted that a plot of land measuring 0.3950 hectares was taken from the petitioner and an alternative allotment of land was made in his favour in respect of the said plot of land as mentioned above bearing the exact area of land taken from him. 7. The affidavit further records that since some portion of the said land at Maymyo Village was encumbered by encroachment by some persons, the petitioner did not accept the same and asked the authorities to allot the land somewhere else. Subsequently, an alternative land had been allotted in favor of the petitioner at Survey No. 1/49 situated at Wadoor village by an order dated March 19, 2014 in lieu of the land which was allotted to the petitioner by way of an alternative allotment in Maymyo Village. 8. The respondents have repeatedly mentioned that the petitioner had declined to accept the allotment of the plot of land made in his favour in Maymyo village and after the allotment of the land at Wandor village, the question of again allotting the land in Maymyo village does not arise. 9. The stand taken by the respondents appears to have been borne by the records annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. The various documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition clearly lend credence to the case made out by the respondents that originally a plot of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner in Maymyo village. Subsequently, another plot of land was allotted to him in Wandoor village in lieu of the land allotted to him in Maymyo village. 10. This also appears to have been admitted by Mr. Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner, in his submission to the Court. Mr. Mandal, learned Government Pleader submits that the plot which was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioner was by the side of the plot of land which he was holding originally in Wandoor Village. Mr. Kumar submitted that the land in Maymyo village which was originally allotted to him was not accepted because part of it was encroached and the subsequent allotment of plot of land in favour of the petitioner in Wandoor village is not suitable for agricultural purposes. 11. However, this part of the case of the petitioner is conspicuous by absence in the writ petition. 11. However, this part of the case of the petitioner is conspicuous by absence in the writ petition. The writ petitioner nowhere mentions that he had refused to accept the allotment of land in Maymyo village on the ground of encroachment or an alternative plot of land was given to him in Wandoor village. On the contrary, the petitioner alleges that the land which was allotted to him in Maymyo village was unilaterally cancelled by the respondents without complying with the principle of natural justice. 12. If only that had been the case, there would not have been any occasion for Mr. Kumar to submit in Court the reason for his not accepting the allotment or that the land in Wandoor is not fit for plantation, although this part of allegation has been denied by Mr. Mandal. 13. The writ petition is a very incomplete one and there has been very gross suppression of material facts. The petitioner wanted to make out a case as if the land which was allotted in Maymyo village was unilaterally cancelled and since that cancellation was not in accordance with law, he prays for correction of record of right by incorporating the name of the petitioner in respect of the said plot of land. The writ petition is absolutely silent that he declined to accept the allotment for whatever reasons that would be. He does not say that an alternative plot of land by the side of the original allotment had already been allotted to him. 14. By suppressing a very material facts, the petitioner did make out a very different case to obtain an order of the court upon presenting an incorrect picture. 15. The respondents are absolutely justified in submitting that the question of re-allotment of the land in Maymyo village does not arise as already a plot of land by the side of the original holding of the petitioner in Wandoor village has been allotted in his favour. 16. Mr. Mondal submitted that the land in Wandoor village allotted to the petitioner bears the plantation made by him. The effect of granting the prayer made in the petitioner now would be that the petitioner will have in possession of two plots of land for loss of one plot in Wandoor village as the petitioner has totally suppressed the factum of the subsequent allotment of land in Wandoor. 17. The effect of granting the prayer made in the petitioner now would be that the petitioner will have in possession of two plots of land for loss of one plot in Wandoor village as the petitioner has totally suppressed the factum of the subsequent allotment of land in Wandoor. 17. Since the petitioner has not mentioned anything about the subsequent allotment in Wandoor, he has also not prayed for surrendering the plot of land allotted to him in Wandoor Village. 18. I also quite agree with the submission of Mr. Mandal that the land in these islands have now become scarcity, particularly after tsunami. The Administration could not, therefore, find out series of plots of land for any land-looser. 19. I thus find absolutely no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition made out a very different case than what had been submitted by Mr. Kumar. 20. The writ petition merits no consideration. The writ petition is dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.