JUDGMENT : It is intrinsic to all State action that it should punctiliously comply with sanctioned and imperative procedures, which alone would keep a bay and avoid the otherwise inevitable allegations of capriciousness, nepotism and highhandedness, particularly, in issues relating to rights over properties and actions for expropriation; with ‘faithful adherence to due process’ and ‘procedure established by law’ being unexpendable. 2. The guarantee that the State would act only legally, is enshrined in the ‘due process’ and ‘procedure established’ doctrines – which are the repository of the substantive assurance of the State against unfairness. 3. I have been persuaded to open this judgment with the afore exordium because the petitioners impel very grievous imputations against the respondents – Lakshadweep Administration and its functionaries, alleging that they are being mercilessly thrown out of the seashores/public places, over which they have been in possession and thus obtaining certain legal rights -either in their asserted position as ‘cowleder’ or through inveterate and longstanding occupation. 4. Though there is a prolix of documents, materials and pleadings on record, the essential grievance of the petitioners in these cases – which require to be heard and disposed of jointly on account of the analogous nature of the factual and forensic issues involved -is that they are being ousted in flagrant violation of law and in a surreptitious manner, deliberately denying them legitimate recourse to legal remedies, to which they are entitled to under the various applicable Statutes and Regulations. 5. I have heard Sri.Babu S Nair and Sri.P.Deepak – learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases and Sri.S.Manu – learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. 6. The genesis of the controversy presented in these cases is that the competent Authority issued notices to the petitioners under Rule 17 of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), intimating them that they have been found to be in unauthorized occupation of ‘pandaram’ lands and asking to evict themselves from the areas in question, within the time frames mentioned therein. 7. 7. It transpires that immediately on receipt of the notices aforementioned, the petitioners have approached this Court through these Writ Petitions alleging primarily that the Authority who has issued the notices to them is incompetent as per law; and further that the procedure for summary eviction, as mandated under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’ for short) has been egregiously violated. 8. Compendiously, the assertions of Sri.Babu S. Nair and Sri.P.Deepak -learned counsel for the various petitioners in these cases, are that their clients cannot be presumed, as has been done in the impugned notices, to be unauthorized occupants of Government land and consequently, cannot be proceeded under the provisions of the ‘Regulations’ and ‘Rules’ for eviction. They assert that the power to initiate action with respect to ‘land and land revenue’ by the Lakshadweep Administration, is housed in Chapter III of the ‘Regulations’ which also makes specific stipulations as to the manner in which disputes with respect to the holdings of the Government – even when made by an individual -will have to be adjudicated, dealt with and determined. They, of course, as seen above, have also a specific case that the Authority who has issued the impugned notices is incompetent, going by the ‘Regulations’ and the ‘Rules’. 9. In response, Sri.S.Manu – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the challenge against the incompetence of the Authorities who issued the impugned notices, has no legs to stand on because they have acted as per valid notifications issued by the Administrator of the Islands on 18.04.1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Notification’ for ease), as per which, the Authorities serialized therein have been appointed as the competent ones with jurisdiction noted against each of them. He then argued that even though ‘Sub Divisional Officers’ have been shown to be the competent Authority for Kavarathi in the said notification, it was thereafter re designated as ‘Deputy Collector’, through the notification dated 27.09.2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2012 Notification’ for brevity). He thus argued that the challenge against the competence of the Authorities who have issued the impugned notices would, therefore, attract no merit. 10. He thus argued that the challenge against the competence of the Authorities who have issued the impugned notices would, therefore, attract no merit. 10. Travelling to the second contention of the petitioners, that the impugned notices have been issued without following due procedure, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India pointed out that the powers relating to summary eviction is authorised by Section 15 of the ‘Regulations’, juxtaposed by Rule 17 of the ‘Rules’. He showed me that Section 15 of the ‘Regulations’ would apply in the case of any person who is in occupation of ‘pandaram’ land without lawful authority and would entail a summary eviction in the manner as is postulated under Rule 17 of the ‘Rules’. He then expatiated his argument by submitting that, under Rule 17 of the ‘Rules’, before ordering eviction, the person against whom it is pursued, shall be issued with a notice to show cause within the time specified therein and then a summary enquiry would require to be completed in the manner as laid down in Schedule III of the ‘Rules’. 11. Sri.S.Manu then proceeded to show me, from Schedule III of the "Rules", that as far as proceedings for summary eviction is concerned, Clause 60 thereof only mandates that “the presiding officer shall himself, any such inquiry proceeding, record a minute of the proceedings in his own hand in English or in the language of the district, embracing the materials, any averments made by the parties, the material parts of the evidence, the decision, and the reasons for the same” (sic). He thus contended that none of the petitioners can ever raise an allegation of violation of the provisions of procedure, in any manner, in these cases, since the competent Authority is still in the process of considering and passing orders under the umbra of the afore provisions. 12. Sri.S.Manu further predicated that at least in two cases, namely in W.P.(C)Nos.13835/2021 and 13734/2021, the afore procedure has been completed and final orders have been issued by the competent Authority and consequently, that this writ petition is not maintainable, because such orders are amenable to an appeal before the District Collector under the provisions of Section 78(1)(c) of the "Regulations"; however, conceding that with respect to the other writ petitions, final orders by the competent Authority is still awaited. After saying so, he added that even such of the above writ petitions, in which final orders have not been issued by the competent Authority cannot be prosecuted further by the petitioners, because they will have to wait until they are issued with final orders and then invoke their statutory remedies against them, if so warranted. 13. In reply to the afore, Sri.Babu S.Nair – learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that the learned Central Government Counsel has presented an obfuscated Scheme of the procedure before this Court, because steps for summary eviction under Section 15 of the "Regulations" can be taken against only a person -who is established to be in occupation of the Government land or the 'pandaram' land, as the case may be, without authority. He pointed out that, when any such allegation is made against a person, he obtains a right under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations" to raise a claim, over the property, which then can only be adjudicated and determined by the District Collector and not by the Deputy Collector or any other Authority. He argued that, therefore, when his clients filed objections or will file objections before the Deputy Collector against the notices impugned in these cases, said Authority will have to verify whether there is a valid dispute and if so, is obliged to cease the proceedings for summary eviction and refer it to the District Collector for adjudication, under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations". He accused the Deputy Collectors of not following this procedure and thus pleaded that the impugned notices be set aside. 14. Sri.P.Deepak – learned counsel appearing for other petitioners in these matters, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Babu S.Nair in his reply; however, pointing out that both Sections 11 and 15 of the "Regulations" are within the same Chapter and therefore, that it will have to be read conjointly to understand what really is the Scheme with relation to the lands that are situated in the Lakshadweep Islands. He explained that Section 11(1) of the "Regulations" declare all lands, public roads, lanes and paths and bridges, tanks, ditches, dikes etc., along with creeks, harbours, flowing water and such other to be the property of the Government; and only if it is established, through a proper procedure, that a person is in illegal occupation of any of these or the 'pandaram' lands, can further measures under Section 15 of the "Regulations" be taken against him. 15. In other words, the argument of Sri.P.Deepak was that, if at all any allegation is made against a person that he is an unauthorized occupant of Government or 'pandaram' land, he obtains a statutory right to file objections and to raise a dispute about it, which then would enjoin the Deputy Collector to refer the matter to the District Collector for adjudication under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations"; and that this is important, because the resultant decision of the District Collector would open up a further recourse in law to the person concerned by being able to approach the competent Civil Court against it. Sri.P.Deepak closed his submissions saying that it is only after this procedure is over, can a person be said to be an unauthorized occupant under the purlieus of Section 15(1) of the "Regulations" and thus reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 16. The afore syllogistical arguments and contentions being recorded, it is evident that the thrust of the challenge of the petitioners is as against the competence of the Deputy Collector and also the procedure followed by him. 17. As far as the competence of the Deputy Collector is concerned, I am aware that the argument of Sri. Babu S.Nair, in reference to the 1988 notification', is that same cannot vest him with any jurisdiction to be the 'Competent Authority' under Section 15(1) of the "Regulations", because the said notification has been issued only within the sweep of Sections 4,8 and 118 of the "Regulations". His argument, therefore, was that even if the Sub Divisional Officer mentioned therein has been re-designated as a Deputy Collector, through the 2012 notification', he would not obtain the powers of a 'Competent Authority' under Section 15 of the "Regulations". 18. I have, therefore, examined both the afore notifications carefully. 19. His argument, therefore, was that even if the Sub Divisional Officer mentioned therein has been re-designated as a Deputy Collector, through the 2012 notification', he would not obtain the powers of a 'Competent Authority' under Section 15 of the "Regulations". 18. I have, therefore, examined both the afore notifications carefully. 19. As per Section 4 of the "Regulations", the Government, or such other officer authorized by it, can appoint the several classes of Revenue Officers mentioned therein. It is limpid that the officers enumerated therein are 'Revenue Officers' and this is exactly what is stated by the 1988 notification'. The appointments made under the said notification are as 'Revenue Officers', with their respective jurisdiction noted against each. It is this notification, which was thereafter modified by the 2012 notification', to the limited extent of re designating the "Sub Divisional Officer, Kavarathi", as "Deputy Collector, Kavarathi". Further more, paragraph 3 of the 1988 notification', makes it apodictic that the officers mentioned therein are also the 'Competent Authorities' for the purpose of Section 15 of the "Regulations". This is absolutely relevant because, as per Section 2(d) of the "Regulations", a competent Authority is defined to be 'any officer appointed by the Administrator to be the competent authority for the purpose of that provision;'(sic). 20. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of all the notifications and provisions, I am left without any doubt that the Authorities who have issued the impugned notices are certainly the 'Competent Authorities' for the purpose of Section 15 of the "Regulations". The contentions of the petitioners, contrary to this, are therefore, repelled as being without any merit. 21. That now brings me to the question as to the validity of the notices assailed in these cases. 22. As admitted by both sides, the impugned notices have been issued under Rule 17(1) of the "Rules". The said notices obviously postulate an action under Section 15(1) of the "Regulations" and calls upon the persons on whom it is served to show cause why necessary action for summary eviction be not taken against them. 23. 22. As admitted by both sides, the impugned notices have been issued under Rule 17(1) of the "Rules". The said notices obviously postulate an action under Section 15(1) of the "Regulations" and calls upon the persons on whom it is served to show cause why necessary action for summary eviction be not taken against them. 23. I am cognizant that it is at this point that the contentions of the petitioners would require to be weighed very carefully, because they say that, on receipt of such notices, they showed cause against it, claiming rights on the property in question -from which they are sought to be evicted; and hence that the procedural pendulum will have to swing to the provisions of Section 11(3) of the "Regulations". 24. Of course, the learned Central Government Counsel, Sri.S.Manu, tried to strike a contrary position saying that Section 11(3) of the "Regulations" would not apply to 'pandaram' lands and that any person, who is in occupation of such a land, cannot obtain any right under Section 11(3) of it, to even raise a dispute. 25. However, I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.S.Manu because, as correctly pointed out by Sri.Babu S.Nair and Sri.P.Deepak – learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 11 of the "Regulations" vests title of all the lands in the Government and makes it inevitable, through Section 11(3) thereof, that when a person raises a tenable claim over any such, it will have to be construed as a 'dispute', which will then be capable of being resolved only by the District Collector. 26. Though the pleadings on the files of these cases are not clear as to whether the petitioners have raised any “claim” over the property from which they are being evicted, I am of the firm view that they must be given an opportunity to do so, because these writ petitions were filed possibly in haste, when the petitioners apprehended immediate action for summary eviction, consequent to the impugned notices. If the petitioners are able to raise a valid dispute – in contradistinction to a trifling assertion – the competent Authority may have to, subject to his opinion to be recorded, refer the matter to the District Collector under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations" for resolution. 27. If the petitioners are able to raise a valid dispute – in contradistinction to a trifling assertion – the competent Authority may have to, subject to his opinion to be recorded, refer the matter to the District Collector under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations" for resolution. 27. That said, in W.P.(C) Nos.13835 of 2021 and 13734 of 2021, it is admitted that, against the notices the petitioners therein filed their objections and that they were heard, as permitted by this Court through the interim orders, leading to final orders having been issued by the competent Authority, however, without making any reference to the District Collector under Section 11(3) of the "Regulations". Here it presents small problem as far as the petitioners are concerned, because when final orders have been issued by the competent Authority within the ambit of Section 15(1) of the "Regulations", an alternative remedy becomes available to them under the provisions of Section 78(1)(c) thereof, before the District Collector, through which also they can raise their claim over the property, which will then enjoin the said Authority to consider the same in terms of the procedure as stipulated under the "Regulations" and the "Rules". Since the competent Authority has already issued final orders, which were not interdicted by this Court during the pendency of these cases, I am without doubt that in these two cases at least, the petitioners must file their appeals before the District Collector and that they must be given some time to do so, though the statutory time frame for preferring it had now expired. 28. In fact, I must record that this has been fairly conceded to by Sri.S.Manu – learned Central Government Counsel, because he also agreed that an order which was issued lis pendens, must certainly give rise to a legitimate remedy for the petitioners before the competent Forum. 29. 28. In fact, I must record that this has been fairly conceded to by Sri.S.Manu – learned Central Government Counsel, because he also agreed that an order which was issued lis pendens, must certainly give rise to a legitimate remedy for the petitioners before the competent Forum. 29. The abstract of my observations above, and the total effect of the afore noticed provisions of the "Regulations" and "Rules" would justify this Court in disposing of these writ petitions in the following manner : (a) W.P.(C)Nos.13835 of 2021 and 13734 of 2021 are ordered, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Collector by filing statutory appeals under Section 78(1) (c) of the "Regulations", including by raising an additional request for the dispute -regarding their claim over the property in question -to be adjudicated under Section 11(3) of it; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, said Authority will consider the same, treating it having been validly filed, de hors the elapse of the statutory time period; and dispose it of in terms of law and as per the procedure under Schedule III of the "Rules", as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month thereafter. (b) W.P.(C) Nos.16772 of 2021 and 14830 of 2021 are ordered, leaving liberty to the petitioners to file objections or additional objections as the case may be -before the competent Authority, in response to the notices received by them, raising any claim that they may have over the property in question, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, said Authority will consider the same adverting to my observations in paragraph 26 above, and decide whether the objections construe the color of a bona fide and legitimate 'dispute'; and if so, will then refer it to the District Collector, under the provisions of Section 11(3) of the "Regulations". On the contrary, if the Authority is to find otherwise, then he will be at liberty to continue further proceedings under Section 15(1) of the "Regulations", following due procedure, thus leading to an appropriate final order thereon as per law. On the contrary, if the Authority is to find otherwise, then he will be at liberty to continue further proceedings under Section 15(1) of the "Regulations", following due procedure, thus leading to an appropriate final order thereon as per law. (c) W.P.(C) No.13175 of 2021 is closed as having been withdrawn, because the learned Central Government Counsel says that the notice called into question therein has been withdrawn. (d) W.P.(C) No.19426 of 2021 is closed on account of my afore observations and declarations, since dispossession of the property -as apprehended by the petitioners -cannot be done without following the procedure as seen above.