BY AD v. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER ANDROTH , U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (H.Q) SECRETARIAT, KAVARATTI 682 555 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITHKUMAR.V., STANDING COUNSEL FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of January, 2024 This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order and also seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to ‘rehabilitate the petitioners’ as directed in Ext.P6 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioners are persons, who were in occupation of certain lands in Androth Island, which was required by the Lakshdweep Administration, for the purposes of breakwater and for the purposes of Harbour development. After conducting a survey, it was identified that the petitioners are persons, who are occupying the land required by the Administration without any legal basis and without having any documents to substantiate their right in occupying the land in question. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated to W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 4 evict the petitioners and show cause notices were issued to them in terms of the provisions contained in The Laccadive, Minicoy And Amindivi Islands Land Revenue And Tenancy Regulation, 1965, for short, "Regulation, 1965".

3. Following the directions issued by this Court in an earlier round of litigation at the instance of the petitioners and others, the Collector-cum-Development Commissioner, Union Territory of Lakshdweep, was directed to consider the grievances of the petitioners and to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Collector- cum-Development Commissioner, Union Territory of Lakshdweep, issued Ext.P6 order dated 25.08.2009 finding inter alia that the petitioners are not owners of the land and they were in unauthorised occupation of the land. It was found that the petitioners were using the land in question for commercial and residential purposes and that the Administration had neither granted allotments nor was it collecting any sort of rent from the occupants. It was found W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 5 that the petitioners had not been able to produce any proof regarding their right to continue in the land in question. It was found that the Administration requires the land for development activities in public interest and therefore, since the priority is for public purpose, the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue in occupation of the land. On the issue of rehabilitation, it was found that the rehabilitation can be considered in respect of persons eligible on humanitarian grounds. It was therefore, directed as follows: "1) It is open for the Administration to locate an alternative area for re-habilitation for appellants who are largely poor citizens of the islands. Taking out the means of lively-hood from their hands may raise humanitarian concerns. It may be sorted out by appropriate developments of a alternate area for only poor appellants under expert guidance of Lakshadweep Administration. 2) The eviction could be carried out without payment of any compensation so that the plan of the administration in public Interest can be implemented. Compensation for structures are to be paid, if rehabilitation is not accepted. 3) As the issues involve rehabilitation on humanitarian grounds, Rehabilitation may be carried out first, prior to the W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 6 implementation of the eviction from land and undertaking further developments."

4. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18538 of 2010, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment and the findings are as follows: "5. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1421/2011 contends that the main jetty of the Androth Island is obstructed by the illegal structures put up by these trespassers. The fact that the trespassers have to be evicted with utmost expedition to facilitate the breakwater facility for the main jetty is beyond dispute. Such a facility is necessary to enable the passengers to embark and disembark from the ships and vessels nearing the Androth Island. The matter cannot brook any further delay in view of the fact that the eviction of trespassers is essential for development of breakwater facility and their occupation is unauthorised.

6. I direct respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C). No. 26169/2010 to complete the process of rehabilitation and eviction simultaneously within a time frame. Such simultaneous exercise is resorted to as otherwise any bickering regards rehabilitation may delay the as implementation of the W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 7 breakwater facility in the main jetty of the Androth Island. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.26169/2010 on or before 31.12.2013. These writ petitions are disposed of. No costs."

5. The petitioners challenged Ext.P8 judgment by filing W.A.No.72 of 2014, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, refusing to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and specifically with a finding that the question of rehabilitatation would be confined to genuinely poor people. The findings made therein are as follows: "We have also noticed that pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge a decision has already been taken by the Collector finding that no one is entitled. The said order passed by the Collector is not called in question before us. Therefore, if we think that while we declare that only the poor among the encroachers are entitled as to who among them are poor need not be considered in these proceedings and we can leave it open to the appellants if aggrieved by Annexure-A1 to challenge it. We leave it open to appellants to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 8 Subject to the above observations, these Writ Appeals are disposed of" The Division Bench also finds that pending the proceedings, the eviction has already been carried out and the petitioners were therefore left with a liberty to challenge the order refusing rehabilitation (Ext.P10 order dated 13.12.2013). It is thereafter that the petitioners approached before this Court challenging Ext.P10 and seeking a direction to the Lakshdweep Administration to offer rehabilitation to the petitioners, who have already been evicted from the lands in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the procedure adopted by the Lakshdweep Administration in initiating steps to evict the petitioners from the land, which has been in occupation of the petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest for number of years, is illegal and not in accordance with the Regulations, 1965. It is submitted that there is a clear finding in Ext.P6 order that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are entitled to be rehabilitated. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioners were evicted and no rehabilitation was W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 9 offered to the petitioners. It is also submitted that in terms of Ext.P9 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to claim rehabilitation. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been found ineligible for rehabilitation without any material and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the prayers sought for in the present writ petition.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Lakshdweep Administration would vehemently opposes the grant of any relief. Referring to the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, it is pointed out that the petitioners cannot now agitate the question as to whether the petitioners were evicted from the lands in questions in accordance with the law. It is also submitted that this Court in Ext P8 judgment, clearly found that the Lakshdweep Administration was entitled to proceed expeditiously with the eviction while considering the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation. It is submitted that Ext.P8 jugment of this Court has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. It is also submitted that the Lakshdweep Administration had conducted a detailed enquiry to determine as W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 10 to who amongst the evictees are entitled for rehabilitation. It is also submitted that the said exercise carried out by the Lakshdweep Administration resulted in identification of one individual among the evictees who alone was belonging to the BPL family and was found eligible for rehabilitation. It is submitted that the said person is not among the petitioners before this Court. It is also submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, it was found that they were all persons, who have other residential buildings and properties in the island and therefore, they were found ineligible for rehabilitation. It is submitted that the Division Bench in Ext.P9 judgment has clearly found that all the evictees are not entitled for rehabilitation across the board and that only eligible persons are entitled for rehabilitation.

8. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshdweep Administration, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. The learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshdweep Administration is right in contending that the petitioners cannot W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 11 at this stage challenge the proceedings initiated by the Administration for evicting the petitioners and others from the lands in question. The earlier challenge to the proceedings for eviction resulted in Ext.P8 judgment, wherein this Court clearly held that the Administration could proceed to the eviction while considering the case of rehabilitation and that judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. In Ext.P9 judgment, the Division Bench has also found that all persons, who were evicted are not entitled for rehabilitation as a matter of right. It was clearly found that only eligible persons, who fall within the BPL category are entitled for rehabilitation. It is the specific case of the Lakshdweep Administration in its counter affidavit filed before this Court that one among the evictees, who had never approached this Court by filing any earlier writ petition, was found eligible for rehabilitation. It is also submitted that all the petitioners are persons, who are having other residential holdings, properties etc. and therefore, they cannot by any standard be said to be persons entitled to rehabilitation. I do not find any material placed on record to W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 12 suggest with the said statement of the Administration in their counter affidavit is wrong. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P10 order dated 3.12.2013. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE W.P.(C) No.13801 of 2014 13 RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) Annexure R1(b) PETITIONER EXHIBITS APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13801/2014 A true copy of the relevant pages of The Laccadive, Minicoy And Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation,1965 The Laccadive, Minicoy And Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Rules,1968 EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 13237/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR KAVARATTI EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/9/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COLLECTOR CUM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.18538/2010 DATED 21/11/2013 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 72/2014 DATED 20/1/2014 EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/12/2013 BY THE IST RESPONDENT