SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J. - (1.) THE case of the petitioner is that in the year 1983 he was granted a licence by the respondent no.2 in respect of a certain land at Prothrapur village along with 923 other persons. At the time of making an inquiry regarding handing over of possession it was detected that the alleged land fell within the boundary of the Central Agricultural Research Institution. The same was the fate of 186 persons out of 923 allottees. Subsequently, the High Court on a writ petition filed by another allottee inter alia directed the respondents to frame a scheme for giving an alternative site to the petitioner of that writ petition in lieu of the land allotted to him. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to land in terms of the said scheme; but no such land was actually allotted to him.
(2.) HE, therefore, had filed a writ petition in the year 2010 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by giving direction upon the respondent no.2 to allot land in accordance with the scheme in the event the Deputy Commissioner after inquiry found that the writ petitioner did not have any land in his name or in the name of his spouse and he had not been allotted alternative land in lieu of the original allotment. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 12 weeks and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter. Pursuant to the said direction the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman district, considered the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled to get the allotment of any alternative land as his father along with three others were recorded licensees in respect of a land situated at Phoenix Bay. It was also recorded that the father-in-law of the petitioner was also a recorded licensee in respect of a house at Tusnabad village under Ferrargunj Tehsil. The said authority was of the view that after the death of his father the petitioner would get a share in his father's properties. Similarly, after death of his father-in-law his wife will also get a share in respect of the house recorded in favour of her father. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, turned down the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner or his wife was not a landless person as he/she will be getting a share of the landed property by inheritance. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman district, has been challenged in the writ petition.
(3.) THIS application has been contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition stipulated in the scheme and was not eligible for allotment of an alternative land. One of the conditions of the said scheme was furnishing of documentary evidence regarding filing of the representation for alternative allotment within 12 years of allotment i.e. the year 1983. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner had not filed his claim within 12 years from the date of his allotment and as such he was not eligible as per the scheme. Moreover, the father of the petitioner has already expired and the petitioner has inherited the share of his father's property. The argument regarding the future inheritance on the death of the father-in-law was also repeated in the affidavit. It was however admitted that the Revenue field staff committed a mistake in allotting the plot of land to the petitioner on a portion of the land which was already allotted to the Central Agricultural Research Institution in 1971. This mistake was detected at the time of handing over of physical possession. The order impugned in the writ petition is a patently unjust one. Merely because the father or the father-in-law of the petitioner has/had a plot of land, the petitioner could not be denied the same. That was never a condition contemplated in the scheme. The Deputy Commissioner had rejected the claim of the petitioner on a ground which does not find place in the scheme itself. Recording of any plot of land in favour of the father or the father-in-law was never a condition contemplated by the scheme as a factor disentitling the petitioner to get an allotment of a plot of land. The father or the father-in-law of an applicant may hold a piece of land and they must one day die, but that does not disentitle an applicant to successfully maintain an application for allotment of land. The Administration cannot deny to an applicant his right to get allotment of a plot of land if he is otherwise entitled to under the scheme on a specious ground that one day his father will die and he will inherit a share in the said plot or on the death of his father-in-law his spouse will inherit her share in her father's property. The Deputy Commissioner while passing this order was oblivious of the fact that on the death of the father or father-in-law the said plot of land might not have remained in their respective hands or they might have bequeathed the property to anybody other than the petitioner.;