The Lt. Governor and Ors. Vs. Shiv Chander More and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001]
With
Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001]
Petitioner: The Lt. Governor and Ors.
Respondent: Shiv Chander More and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001]
With
Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. T.S. Doabia, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Mr. A. Tariq and Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate, Ms. Sneh Kalita, Mr. Parmanand, Mr. Rajiv Talwar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate, Ms. Sneh Kalita, Mr. Parmanand, Mr. Rajiv Talwar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Land Laws
Assignment of land – Representation on 5.5.2000 for grant of license – Second renewal sought – Rejection by Lt. Governor, held, was justified in view of Ratan Kumar’s judgment. Contrary findings by High Court, held, erroneous and set aside. (Para 2)
Assignment of land – Representation on 5.5.2000 for grant of license – Second renewal sought – Rejection by Lt. Governor, held, was justified in view of Ratan Kumar’s judgment. Contrary findings by High Court, held, erroneous and set aside. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Ratan Kaur v. Union of India [JT 1997 (6) SC 21] (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We find the approach of the High Court, (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench), to be erroneous. It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the representation made on 05.05.2000 by Shiv Chander More was for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in our view, rightly, that a second renewal was not permissible referring to a judgment of this Court in Ratan Kaur v. Union of India [JT 1997 (6) SC 21 ; 1997 (10) SCC 61]. The order was challenged before learned Single Judge. Strangely, though learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable but nevertheless granted relief to the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the Lt. Governor, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tehsildar. Peculiarly, the Division Bench found that the decision in Ratan Kaur’s case (supra) to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable, it was not open to the Division Bench to take a different view without even indicating any distinguishing feature. However, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the representation did not reflect the correct state of affairs, and in fact, what was being objected to was the action for eviction. That matter was never projected before the Lt. Governor and, as noted above, the prayer was for renewal. The order of the Lt. Governor, therefore, was legal and proper and the High Court should not have interfered with it. If the respondent has any remedy, as claimed, other than seeking fresh grant and/or renewal, that did not fall for consideration in the representation before the Lt. Governor and the High Court. We express no opinion in that regard.
3. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2004
4. In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5091 of 2004, this appeal is allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We find the approach of the High Court, (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench), to be erroneous. It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the representation made on 05.05.2000 by Shiv Chander More was for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in our view, rightly, that a second renewal was not permissible referring to a judgment of this Court in Ratan Kaur v. Union of India [JT 1997 (6) SC 21 ; 1997 (10) SCC 61]. The order was challenged before learned Single Judge. Strangely, though learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable but nevertheless granted relief to the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the Lt. Governor, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tehsildar. Peculiarly, the Division Bench found that the decision in Ratan Kaur’s case (supra) to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable, it was not open to the Division Bench to take a different view without even indicating any distinguishing feature. However, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the representation did not reflect the correct state of affairs, and in fact, what was being objected to was the action for eviction. That matter was never projected before the Lt. Governor and, as noted above, the prayer was for renewal. The order of the Lt. Governor, therefore, was legal and proper and the High Court should not have interfered with it. If the respondent has any remedy, as claimed, other than seeking fresh grant and/or renewal, that did not fall for consideration in the representation before the Lt. Governor and the High Court. We express no opinion in that regard.
3. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2004
4. In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5091 of 2004, this appeal is allowed.
