DEPUTY COLLECTOR MINICOY Vs. NAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 8th February, 1984 in Writ Appeal No. 525/81 and batch. Notices were issued under the Laksha-dweep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allotment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules) and challenging those notices the respondents herein filed writ applications. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ applications. In appeal the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment quashed notices issued and allowed the writ appeals filed and thus these appeals by special leave.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that South Pandaram Lands are the Government lands. Before the Minicoy Island came under the British Rule the Raja of Cannanore was enjoying the usufruct of the coconut trees standing on the South Pandaram Lands. the inhabitants of the Islands were getting some mamul for collecting and stacking the coconuts. After the British Rule the inhabitants of the Islands continued to collect the coconuts from the trees and for that purpose they are getting some remuneration in kind but at no point of time they had any right to the trees or the land one which the trees stood. Sometimes prior to 1942 the Government evolved a scheme conferring rights to the inhabitants of the Island to collect and enjoy the fruits from the coconut trees. After India became independent when Five Year Plan was implemented. on the representation of the people of Micicoy a new scheme was proposed and under that scheme the inhabitants were permitted not only to collect the coconuts falling from the trees but also to pluck the nuts from the trees itself. And after this right was conferred as a collective right in favour of inhabitants through their Mooppans, the Mooppan thus as a trustee for all the villagers had the right to enjoy usufruct of the account trees for himself as well as for all the villagers together and the Mooppan was distributing he coconuts amongst the villagers. While the Mooppans continued to enjoy usufruct of the coconut trees for themselves as well as for the villagers, gradually a demand for abolition of Mooppans system began. The administration considering the grievances of the villagers finally thought of granting separate plots of land individually to the inhabitants and ultimately Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation') was promulgated under Article 240 of the Constitution of India. The Administrator thereafter framed Rules in exercise of power conferred under Section 121 of the Regulation. It is the further case of the appellants that the people of Minicoy Island never had any vested right on the land on which the coconut trees stood though they were enjoying the right of collection of yield of the coconut trees standing on the South Pandaram Land and therefore they cannot be held to have acquired right of occupancy. In accordance with the Rules framed under the Regulation notices having been issued by the appropriate authority for allotting different parts of South Pandaram Land to different persons, writ applications came to be filed by the respondents herein contending inter alia that they have acquired right of occupancy being in occupation of South Pandaram Lands prior to the Regulation coming into force and therefore the notices issued under the Rules would deprive them of their right of occupancy. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Regulation and the rights enjoyed by the Mooppans in respect of the usufruct of the coconut trees came to hold that no right of occupancy accrued in favour of the Mooppans under Sections 83 and 84 of the Regulation. It was also further found that the Mooppans as well as the inhabitants of the Island merely enjoyed a right of plucking coconuts from the trees without having any right over the land or the tress itself and therefore they cannot be held to be in occupation of the land in question and their claim of right of occupancy is un-sustainable. With these findings the writ applications having been dismissed, the respondents preferred appeals to the Division Bench. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment came to hold that the Mooppans were in occupation of the Pandaram Lands at the commencement of the Regulation on behalf of the inhabitants of the village and therefore they are entitled to their claim of right of occupancy over the land in question. The notices issued by the appropriate authority under the 1979 Rules can only be applicable in respect of fresh lands and will not divest the persons who have already acquired right of occupancy. Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and hence these appeals by special leave.