Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 962 (CAL)

K. R. Suresh Kumar v. Lieutenant Governor

2024-05-03

BIBHAS RANJAN DE

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers – a. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to act accordingly in accordance with law. b. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 to set aside / cancel/ annul the impugned order no 221 dated 21/10/2021 passed the respondent no 1 is bad in eyes of law against the provision of the A & N Islands LR & LRR 1968. c. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 to pass necessary orders for correction of revenue records as License instead of Lease the provision of the A & N Islands LR & LRR 1968. d. A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no 1 & 2 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the alleged paper publication dated 02-09-2021 wherein in contrary to law an advertisement was published contending that the possession pertaining to the subject landed property in question was taken back by the A & N Administration, and to pass further necessary order taking action against such Officer who published a wrong publication in NEWS paper. e. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the relevant records before this Hon'ble Court enabling the court to render justice in the matter. f. Other or further Writ and/or direction and/or order as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. In this Writ Application the challenge is the order being no. 221 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Brief facts:- 3. The writ petitioner is descendant of a pre-42 settler in possession of land measuring an area of 180 sq. meters at village Aberdeen under Port Blair Tehsil since 1970. The land in question was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioner under Section 146 (ii) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (for short Regulation Act) on approval of the competent authority and a licence to that effect was issued under Form AG-1. meters at village Aberdeen under Port Blair Tehsil since 1970. The land in question was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioner under Section 146 (ii) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (for short Regulation Act) on approval of the competent authority and a licence to that effect was issued under Form AG-1. Subsequent to that allotment, the licence and formal possession of the land was also made and possession certificate was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner is still in possession of the land and in the extracts of the Khasra register and map of the said village the name of the petitioner appears. The land revenue of the said land allotted in favour of the petitioner was continuously paid by him to the authorities for five years from 1987 to 1991. But, in 1992 when the petitioner went to pay the land revenue, the authorities refused to accept the same and informed the petitioner that the land was given on ‘lease’ for five years only. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained certified copy of the extracts of the Khasra register wherein there was a remark that the land is given on lease basis only for five years. The petitioner started corresponding to the authorities for correcting the anomaly in the records with a prayer for regularizing the allotment as a licence land. The petitioner alleged inter alia that the licence was issued under Form AG-1 and the same was allotted under Section 146(ii) of Regulation Act. As such, the petitioner has been conferred with the rights and liabilities to enjoy the land as licence only. He further claimed that the land was allotted by invoking Section 146 (ii) of the Regulation Act and therefore the petitioner’s tenancy is that of a licencee as defined in the Section 145 of the Regulation Act. 4. The Lieutenant Governor disposed of the matter by the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected and land was taken back by the Government. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner with the prayer for cancellation of the impugned order and also to give a direction to the respondent no. 1 to pass necessary orders for correction of revenue records as licence instead of lease as per the provisions of the Regulation Act. Argument Advanced:- 5. Ms. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner with the prayer for cancellation of the impugned order and also to give a direction to the respondent no. 1 to pass necessary orders for correction of revenue records as licence instead of lease as per the provisions of the Regulation Act. Argument Advanced:- 5. Ms. G. Mini, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner preferred one writ petition being no. 209 of 2018 wherein Hon’ble Court directed Lieutenant Governor to consider the representation made by the petitioner, praying for regularisation of the land allotted to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted by Ms. Mini that writ petitioner was in possession of the subject property since long and made a prayer before the Lt. Governor for regularisation of land. 6. It is further submitted that writ petitioner was given allotment of the subject land as licensee via AG-1 Form under Section 146 (ii) of the Regulation Act. In support of her contention, Ms. Mini has further referred to Section 141 of the Regulation Act whereby there are four classifications of tenant including the licensees. 7. Ms. Mini has further contended that possession of the subject land was allotted to him as licensee on 23.01.1987. In support of her contention, she referred to the possession certificate attached with the application. Therefore, according to Ms. Mini, he made representation before the competent authority for extension of the licence period and regularisation thereof. In addition to that she has contended that the writ petitioner has constructed a gate with a structure inside the compound which is covered with a wall and he also has electric connection in the subject land and also pays electric bill from time to time. 8. Ms. Babita Das, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the subject property has been recorded in the Government Revenue Department corrected on 31st 9. Ms. Das has referred to the writ application and the documents annexed there with and submitted that the subject property was granted in favour of the writ petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner vide order no. 1088/85 dated 6th January, 1987 for the installation of poultry farm on the lease basis for the period of five years. 10. Ms. Ms. Das has referred to the writ application and the documents annexed there with and submitted that the subject property was granted in favour of the writ petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner vide order no. 1088/85 dated 6th January, 1987 for the installation of poultry farm on the lease basis for the period of five years. 10. Ms. Das has submitted that the other land in connection with survey no. 1973/4/2 classified as house site situated at Aberdeen village has been recorded in the name of the writ petitioner as tenant. And all the revenue receipts filed by the writ petitioner does not pertain to the subject land. However, Ms. Das has submitted that petitioner was granted the subject land in the year 1987 for the purpose of poultry farm on lease basis for five years only and therefore writ petitioner cannot claim any right over the subject land as licensee far to speak of regularisation thereof. Analysis:- 11. Here in this case, writ petitioner’s claim is that he was granted licence of the subject land under AG-1 Form and admittedly no such original or copy of the licence has ever been produced before this Court. Rather writ petitioner took a plea that said original licence or copy of it was not available with him as it was misplaced. 12. In support of writ petitioner’s contention, Ms. Mini has referred to the possession certificate (annexure P1). And relying on that particular possession certificate writ petitioner claimed his right as licensee under the provision of Section 146(ii) of the Regulation Act. 13. After scrutiny of the possession certificate it comes to my view the word ‘licence’ was used by the writ petitioner himself under his own signature by stating as follows:- “LICENCE ISSUED IN FORM AG-1 HAVE ALSO HANDED OVER TO ME.” 14. After the perusal of the Khasra Register of the Aberdeen Village (annexure P2) it has come to my notice that the subject land as per the record of the register was allotted to the writ petitioner on lease basis for a period of five years only. After the perusal of the Khasra Register of the Aberdeen Village (annexure P2) it has come to my notice that the subject land as per the record of the register was allotted to the writ petitioner on lease basis for a period of five years only. In addition to that, the writ petitioner vide his application dated 05.12.1991 (annexure P4) made a request himself to the Deputy Commissioner for extension of ‘lease period’ of the subject land in his favour which clearly shows that he had prior knowledge about the nature of the agreement in relation with the subject land and also the fact that the writ petitioner paid the land revenue to the authorities for five years only from 1987 to 1991. But, in the year 1992 the revenue authorities refused to accept his land revenue and informed him that the land was given on ‘lease’ only that too for a fixed period of five years which further strengthens the bona fide of the respondents. 15. From an overall discussion made by this Court I, in any stretch of imagination, am unable to come to any conclusion even that the writ petitioner was ever allotted licence of the subject land at any point of time. On the other hand, the documents relied by the writ petitioner himself show that he was allotted the land on lease basis that too for five years for the purpose of Poultry Farm. 16. Now, coming to the petitioner’s contention with regard to structured construction as well as electric connection in relation with the subject land, the order book maintained by the area Patwari adduced by the respondents in the affidavit in opposition marked as R6, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner shall not construct any structure of permanent nature. 17. On scrutiny of the order impugned passed by Lt. Governor, I find that the representation of the writ petitioner was considered but could not be decided in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground of the expiry of the lease in the year 1992 and in addition to that the prayer of the petitioner to regularise the subject land was also not tenable as the scheme for that purpose was only for a one time basis and the scheme was closed on 31.03.1999 and moreover the subject land had already been reverted back in favour of the Government. Hence neither the prayer for regularisation nor the extension of the lease as prayed for, was allowed. 18. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. 19. In the result, the instant writ application being no. WPA 16 of 2022 stands dismissed. 20. Parties to act on a server copy of this judgement duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.