Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THE writ applications would relate to a common question of law having great similarity of facts. We intend to dispose of all the applications by a common judgment and order. FACTS; (i) The writ application being No. 031 of 2014 had been preferred stating, inter alia, that the Administration conferred tenancy in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners' predecessor, he constructed a building there upon and after his death the said land was mutated in the name of the writ petitioner along with other heirs. Surprisingly thereafter, a revenue case was initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 alleging, inter alia, that the building in the said land had been erected in contravention OF Rule 165(1)(a) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). By the said notice the petitioner was asked to alter or demolish the building to the extent necessary for compliance of Sub -Rule (a) of Rule 165 within a period of fifteen days or in the alternative to appear before the authority on 10th of January, 2013. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and he was heard. Subsequent thereto a further notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 on 1st April, 2013 asking the petitioner to again appear for hearing on 9th April, 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 2 on the scheduled date. Thereafter, the petitioner was communicated an order dated 14th of August, 2013 issued by the respondent No. 2. The said order had been challenged in the instant writ application. (ii) The writ application being WP No. 032 of 2014 had been preferred challenging an order dated 14th August, 2013 issued by the respondent No. 2 and the facts involved in the said writ application are almost identical to the facts of the earlier writ application being WP No. 031 of 2014. (iii) The writ application being WP No. 007 of 2014 had been preferred by the writ petitioner stating, inter alia, that he is a recorded tenant of the land in question. Pertaining to the construction made upon the said land, the respondent No. 2 issued notice in the month of December, 2012 stating, inter alia, that the building in the said land had been erected in contravention of the Rule 165(1)(a) of the said Rules. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner filed an application for condonation/exemption, but the same was not considered and the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 14th August, 2013, inter alia, directing the respondent No. 4 to alter/demolish the offending portion of the petitioner's building. The said order was appealed against by the petitioner and the said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 10th December, 2013 issued by the respondent No. 2 and the same had been challenged through the instant writ application. (iv) The facts of the writ application being WP No. 023 of 2014 are almost identical to the facts of the writ application being WP No. 007 of 2013 and the subject matter of challenge of the instant writ application is also an order dated 10th December, 2013 passed by the respondent No. 2. (v) The writ application being WP No. 382 of 2013 had been preferred challenging an order dated 7th November 2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the facts of the instant writ application are also identical to the facts of the earlier writ application being WP No. 023 of 2014. (vi) The writ application being WP No. 383 of 2013 had been preferred challenging an order dated 7th November, 2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the facts of the writ application are also identical to the earlier writ application being No. 382 of 2013. CONTENTIONS:
(2.) MR . Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners in the WP No. 031 of. 2014 and WP No. 032 of 2014, submits that the Rule 165 of the said Rules has, no statutory force as it had not been enacted in terms of Section 210 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations). Mr. Jayapal draws the attention of this Court to Section 210 of the said Regulation and submits that the rule making power of competent authority is restricted to the matters under the sub -clauses (i) to (x1) of Section 210(2). Under the said provision no jurisdiction stands conferred upon the competent authority under Section 210(1) to frame any rule pertaining to construction of any building maintaining the set back. According to Mr. Jayapal Rule 165 of the said Rules has no statutory force and accordingly the order impugned in the writ applications are without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.
(3.) IN support of his submission, Mr. Jayapal had relied upon the following judgments: a) State of Karnataka and Other v. H. Ganesh Kamath and Others reported in : (1983) 2 SCC 402. b) General Officer Commanding -in -chief v. Dr. Subhas Chandra Yadav and Other reported in : (1988) 2 SCC 351. c) Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Other v. State of H.P. and Others reported in : (2000) 3 SCC 40. d) Additional District Magistrate, Rev Delhi Administration v. Siri Ram reported in : (2000) 5 SCC 451. e) St. Johns Teacher Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for teacher education and Another reported in : (2003) 3 SCC 321. f) State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishana Murthy and Others reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 517. g) State of Kerala and Others v. Unni and Another reported in : (2007) 2 SCC 365. h) Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission v. R.V.K. Energy Pvt. Ltd and Another reported in : (2008) 17 SCC 769. i) Global Energy Limited and Another v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission reported in : (2009) 15 SCC 570. j) Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of M.P. and others reported in : (2011) 9 SCC 573. k) Union of India and Others v. S. Srinivasan reported in : (2012) 7 SCC 683.;