Collector of Land Acquisition & Ors. Vs. M/s Andaman Timber Ind. & Ors.
|
Head Note
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 3 , Section 4 , Section 17 (1)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, Sections 38, 141, 145 and 146 read with Section 162 - Indian Easement Act, Section 52 - Land Acquisition - Licensee - Compensation - Review - Contention urged by the appellant that the license is a privilege, granted in favour of Respondent No.1 to utilise the land for construction of building and establishing timber industry held to be wholly untenable in law - Licensee is one of the classes of tenants as specified under Section 161 of the Regulation, 1966 - The same is perpetual in nature and hence the contention urged on behalf of the Review Petitioners-Appellants that since no interest in favour of Respondent No.1 has been created upon the land in question vests in the Government is wholly untenable in law.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 3 , Section 4 , Section 17 (1)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, Sections 38, 141, 145 and 146 read with Section 162 - Indian Easement Act, Section 52 - Land Acquisition - Licensee - Compensation - Review -License has been granted under Section 146 (ii) of Regulation, 1966 under Form AG3 which does not stipulate the period of licensing right - In the absence of stipulation of period, the contention urged on behalf of Respondent No.1 that it is a perpetual license in respect of the acquired land is a tenable contention, particularly having regard to the classes of tenants defined under Section 141 of the Regulation, 1966 - Respondent No.1 has acquired interest in the land in dispute, in terms of the notifications under Sections 4(1), 4(2) read with Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act, wherein the plots and parcels of land along with building structures, the trees and crops have been clearly mentioned - Such an interest could only be extinguished in terms of Section 162 of the Regulation, 1966 - Not awarding compensation as provided under Section 11 of the L.A. Act amounts to deliberate omission in discharge of statutory duty by the Collector, despite the statutory right vesting in Respondent No.1 for award of compensation in lieu of losing the holding rights over the land on account of acquisition of the same by the Government - Respondent No.1 rightly approached the High Court praying that the Writ of Mandamus be issued to the Review Petitioners-Appellants to pass an Award of compensation in its favour in respect of the remaining land - High Court granted the same after consideration of all the relevant facts, documents and the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties - Review Petitioners-Appellants, aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order granting relief in favour of Respondent No.1, challenged the correctness of the same before this Court in Civil Appeal and the same rightly dismissed affirming the impugned judgment therein after considering the undisputed fact that the interest upon the land in question has been acquired by the Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for the purpose of establishment of industry.
Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Licensee - Compensation Allowed