Calcutta High Court
Travel Corporation Of (India Pvt. Ltd.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)2CALLT397(HC)
JUDGMENT Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by Travel Corporation of (India) Private Limited, the owner of Andaman Beach Resort at Corbyn's Cove, Port Blair, Andamans praying for a Writ of Mandamus to quash, rescind and cancel the orders dated 15th of April, 1988 of Sub-Divisional Officer of Port Blair, Andaman passed in R.C. Case No. 5 of 1988, in Revenue Appeal No. 59. of 1988 and for consequential reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition itself. It is stated in details that the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of Travel Trade, Hotel Operation and the expansion of Tourist Traffic in India by establishing Tourist Resorts in different parts of India. The petitioner constructed a spacious beach resort and it has been running a hotel at under the name and style of "Corbyn's Cove". For the purpose of expansion of the said Tourist Resort, the petitioner is alleged to have applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Port Blair, Andamans for necessary permission to convert an area 850 square metres of agricultural land belonging to the Company with a view to raise construction thereupon. In view of the urgency of the project, the petitioner allegedly obtained sanction of the plan on the 1st of December, 198 from the Municipal Board and took up construction in August, 1987 on the clear assurance of the office of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman that necessary permission for conversion would be granted soon. The sanction which was granted had to expire on December 1987 by which time the main structure extention was complete. The completion certificate was issued on 29th December, 1987 by the Municipal Board and the plan was re-validated on the same date for a further period of one year to enable the petitioner to complete the building. It is placed on record that on or about 8th of February, 1988 when the petitioner was really waiting for the necessary permission for conversion from the respondent No. 5, it was taken by surprise by receiving a notice to show cause as to why action would not be taken for conversion of 850 Square Metres of their land for commercial purpose for which no permission of the competent authority was obtained. A reply was given and the petitioner further requested for grant of the necessary sanction as prayed earlier. The respondent No. 5 however, by Order dated 15th of April, 1988 directed the eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid land in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Since, no stay was granted by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ application and obtained necessary orders of status quo. After hearing the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans remanded the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer calling for a fresh decision. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated 27th June, 1988, the petitioner has come to this Court again.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the direction of this Court made in an earlier writ petitions on 26th April, 1988 to dispose the appeal with all reasons. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have dealt with all the points raised by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Andamans directing the eviction of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Joyanta Mitra and with Ranjan Dutt appearing for the writ petitioner have strongly argued that the Deputy Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Sub-Divisional Officer having considered held against the petitioner, there will be no useful purpose to send the case back on remand and instead the case of merit ought to have considered by the Deputy Commissioner himself for effective adjudication. Since the Sub-Divisional Officer, Andamans refused to grant the stay of the order of eviction to enable the petitioner to test his decision in appeal, the order of remand will not serve any performance except for delaying the case to the prejudice of the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner Company is alleged to have made huge investment and any delay is likely to cause serious inconvenience and irreparable injury.
4. The writ petition is strongly contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. It is placed on record that the petitioner Company is a hotel called "Andaman Beach Resort" at Corbyn's Cove, Port Blair. The petitioner applied on 4th of September, 1986 for diversion of an area measuring 760 Square Metres of Agricultural land for commercial purpose to enable them to carry out the extension of the hotel building. This application was rejected on 2.12.1986 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.A.), who was the competent to allow diversion and the petitioner was informed of the decision. The petitioner again made an application on 2nd day of July, 1987 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (South Andaman) for permission to divert an agricultural land into commercial purpose by constructing a building on the said land. As a result, a case under Section 151 of Andamans & Nicobar Islands, the Land Revenue and Land Regulation 1916 was registered against the petitioner. After giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman passed an order from eviction from the land which they had illegally converted without obtaining prior permission. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman before the Deputy Commissioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a previous writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed by directing the concerned authority to deal with and dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order. There was a direction of maintainance of status quo with regard to the possession of the land till one week from the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was heard and by Order dated 27th June, 1988 the appeal was heard and the Judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner for diversion of agricultural land dated 2.7.1987. According to the respondents, there is no reason for the petitioner to file the present writ petition and the grounds are all misconceived.
Mr. Ghosal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has mainly argued that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order to send the case back on remand and in particular no diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose can be made by the appropriate authority without referring the case to the Government of India for clearance as the Government of India has imposed restrictions on construction of building within 500 metres by high water mark of the sea. The respondent Andaman & Nicobar Administration has to consider the case regarding the prohibition to accord permission for construction of building within 500 metres high water mark of the sea. All other allegations of the petitioner have been denied.
5. Upon perusal of the materials on record, and having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the Writ Court is not sitting in appeal upon the decision of the statutory authority. The task of the writ Court is to examine the decision making process as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision {State of U.P. and Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors.). By the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner has sent back the case on remand for effective consideration of all the points raised by the petitioner Company for obtaining necessary permission to convert the agricultural land for commercial purposes. This Court does not appreciate the hasty step taken by the petitioner to raise construction upon the agricultural land without taking any prior permission of the proper authority. The question of assurance and other relevant facts have got to be considered by the appropriate authorities, if any order of eviction is proposed by adducing evidence and the petitioner must explain the conduct and should demonstrate the case before the authorities concerned as to whether there is any case of promissory estoppel. The Writ Court will not certainly entertain any disputed question of fact nor it will assess the evidences. Besides, the petitioners have not produced sufficient materials and they are to adduce evidences before the competent authorities to adjudicate the matter against the proposed step of eviction and their prayer for conversion of the agricultural land into commercial purposes by raising buildings within the prohibited zone as per instructions of the Government of India. All these questions have got to be considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the proper perspective. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is convinced that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly remanded the case back for comprehensive adjudication of all the points as raised by the petitioner as the Sub-Divisional Officer is the trial authority and all evidence should be produced before him and the same should be assessed in the proper perspective. The petitioner's grievance against the order of remand appears to be unnecessary and without any merit. The impugned order of remand does not suffer from any defect, irregularity, illegality and perversity.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition necessitating any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. There will be no order of costs. It is made clear that there will be maintainance of status qua as to the possession of land till the disposal of the matter by the said Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of the order of remand.