LexSHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS. versus LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 417 SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS. v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3352 of 2014) MARCH 7, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926: ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS LAND REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS REGULATION, 1966: Regulation 144 A B c Grant of plot under 1926 Regulation - No fresh grant or 0 renewal - Repeal of 1926 Regulation - Whether the 1966 Regulations conferre,cl any right upon the grantee whose grant has lapsed by passage of time to stay in possession till such time one of the grounds enumerated under Regulation 151 becomes available to the Administration for their eviction - Held: If a grantee of an expired grant had incurred the liability E to surrender possession of the granted property, such liability would remain enforceable notwithstanding the repeal of the Regulations under which such liability arose - Regulation 144 of 1966 Regulations stipulates that a grantee under the old Regulations would continue to be under the same obligation/ F liability or enjoy the same rights as are permissible under the 1966 Regulations - Thus, the essence of the Regulation in so far as right of a grantee to continue in possession is concerned, is the same under the 1926 Regulations and the subsequent Regulations of the year 1966 - In either of the G cases, the grantee cannot stay in possession for more than 60 years - The argument that .an old grantee can stay in possession in perpetuity so long as there is no violation of Regulation 151, is not tenable- The appellants, in the instant 417 H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A case, no doubt had protection under the 1966 Regulations because the grant in their favour renewed upto 1994 was in existence in 1966 but such protection would cease with the expiry of the 60 years period in 1994. B Res judicata: Constructive res judicata - Applicability to writ proceedings - Discussed. Constructive res judicata - Grant of plot of land under c 1926 Rules - Request of appellant for fresh grant declined by the Lieutenant Governor - Writ petition - High Court took the view that the occupants need not be evicted from the land only so long as the same was not needed for any public purpose - Before the High Court, appellant did not raise 0 contention that regardless whether a fresh grant was made in their favour or not and regardless whether or not a second renewal was permissible under the 1926 Regulations, they had acquired a vested right under the 1966 Regulation to continue in occupation of the land till such time one of the E contingencies enumerated under Regulation 151 of the said Regulations arose disentitling them from continuing in occupation of the land - Said contention was available to the occupants which could and indeed ought to have been raised by them at that stage - Inasmuch as the occupants did not F urge such contention in the previous round of litigation they are debarred from doing so in the instant proceedings on the principles of constructive res judicata - Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926. The grandfather of the first appellant and the father G of the remaining appellants was granted a plot of land for a period of 30 years in terms of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926. The said period of 30 years expired in the year 1964. Revenue Administration sought to repossess the land. The grantee H challenged the same and it was held that Revenue SHIV CHANDER MORE v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 419 Department having received land revenue upto the year A 1974 should not refuse renewal and the grantee were allowed to continue in possession till 1994. With the expiry of total period of 60 years, again the grantee was asked to vacate. Matter came up before the High Court wherein the legal heirs of grantee were permitted to make B a representation for fresh grant. No such representation was filed and the Revenue Department again issued notice to vacate. The legal heirs of grantee filed petitions dated 8th and 15th May, 2000 before the Lieutenant Governor for a fresh grant in their favour which were c dismissed. The writ petitions thereagainst were allowed by a single judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench modified the order of the single judge with direction that if the land in question is required by the Administration for public purpose, it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.