DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY AND ORS. versus NAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 11-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY AND ORS. 
v. 
NA V ADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy 
C Regulation, 1965: Section 121. 
South Pandaram Land-Allotment of-To inhabitants-Such in-
habitants had only collective right of collection of coconuts and enjoyment 
thereof through their Mooppans as Trustees-Neither the Mooppans nor the 
inhabitants had right over the land or coconut trees-Mooppans as trustees 
D exercised this collective right arbitrarily-Hence notices issued for allotment 
of separate plots of land to inhabitants-Mooppans challenged these notices 
claiming 1ight of occupancy on ground of they being in occupation of said 
land on behalf of inhabitants prior to commencement of Reguiation-High 
Court allowed the claim-Held : High Court e"ed in granting right of oc-
E cupancy to Mooppans-ln the circumstances of the case, Regulations, Rules 
and notices were valid-Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allot-
ment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 
240. 
The inhabitants of the South Pandaram Land collected coconuts 
p 
from the trees for which purpose they were getting some remuneration in 
kind but at no point of time they had any vested right to the trees or the 
land on which the trees stood. After sometime this right was conferred as 
a collective right in favour of the inhabitants for enjoyment thereof 
through the respondents- Mooppans as trustees. When the Moppans as 
trustees arbitrarily exercised this collective right, the appellants 
G promuglated Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindive Islands Revenue and 
Tenancy Regulation, 1965 under Article 240 of the Constitution of India. 
The appellants issued notices for allotting separate plots of land to the 
inhabitants in accordance with Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy 
(Allotment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979 framed under Section 121 of 
H the Regulations. 
100 
DY. COLLECTOR MINI COY v. NAV ADIGOTIII MOHAMMED 
101 
The respondents-Mooppans filed writ applications before the High A 
Court challenging the aforesaid notices for allotment of plots which were 
dismissed by the Single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench held that the 
respondents-Mooppans were in occupation of the Pandaram Lands at the 
commencement of the Regulation on behalf of the inhabitants and, there-
fore, they were entitled to their claim of right of occupancy over the land B 
in question. The Division Bench also held that the notices issued under 
the Rules were only applicable in respect of fresh lands and would not 
divest the persons who had already acquired right of occupancy. Accord-
ingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals. Being aggrieved the 
appellants preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1. There is no infirmity with the Laccadive, Minicoy and 
Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 as well as the 
Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allotment of Pandaram Land) 
Rules, 1979 framed thereunder and it has been so framed in exercise of D 
power conferred under Article 240 of the Constitution for the peace, 
progress and good government of the Lakshadweep group of Islands. The 
Regulations and the Rules sub-serve the purpose for which power has been 
conferred on the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and the 
Regulation and the Rules would achieve the object of allotting specific part E 
of the land in favour of each individual, so that, the Mooppans will not be 
able to exploit the individuals. The Division Bench of the High Court was 
wholly in error in granting right of occupancy in favour of the respondents 
and in quashing the impugned notices issued by the Administrator in 
exercise of his power under the Regulation and the Rules framed there-
under. [105-A-C; DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11907-
11910 of 1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.84 of the Kerala High Court G 
in W.A. Nos. 525~26, 547 and 550 of 1981. 
P.A. Chowdhary, S.P. Singh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appel-
lants. 
A.S. Nambiar, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan and P.K. Manohar for the H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents. 
B 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J~ Leave granted. 
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of 
the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.