JOSEPH ANTHONY GONSALVES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal and Writ Petition are being disposed of under this common judgment and order as both concern the same subject-matter viz. a piece and parcel of land being plot No.9 situate at Silvassa. The petitioner claims this plot of land by reason of fact that under Alwara No.575 dated 30th May 1942, plot No.9 admeasuring 816 Sq.metres was awarded to him in perpetuity (Aforomento) by the erstwhile Portuguese Government for the purposes of constructing a house thereon.

(2.) WE will refer to the appellant in the Appeal and the petitioner in the Writ Petition as "petitioner" hereinafter. The grant of agricultural and non-agricultural land on Aforomento basis was governed under Organzacao Agrarian which literally translated would mean Agrarian Organisation which was enforced pursuant to provincial decree No.985 of 22nd September 1919. It is common ground that Dadra and Nagar Haveli was under Portuguese rule along with Goa, Daman and Diu. By an action emanated from freedom fighters Dadra and Nagar haveli was liberated in 1954 and ceded to Union of India sometime in the year 1961. Between the period 1954 and 1961 the territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was administered by Central Government.

(3.) WITH a view to bring about land reforms and govern the grant of Government land as also to abolish Aforomento given under Alwara leases and protecting rights of actual cultivators and imposing ceiling on land, the President of India promulgated a Regulation known as Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Land Reforms Regulation, 1971 (for short "Regulation" hereinafter). Under this Regulation all grants made in respect of any land held under Alwara or Teram (Leases) stood extinguished as on the vesting date and the same vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and only subject to the rights created under the same Regulation. The vesting date was notified to be 1st of May 1974. Once all the lands granted by the Government either on the basis of Alwara or Teram once vested in the Government as on 1st of May 1974 by virtue of Clause 21 and 22 of the Regulation, it was open to any party claiming the land or open to the Administration suo motu to decide whether the lands should be revested in the persons who had been granted lands under the erstwhile regime. The petitioner made his claim for revesting the land in him by filing in the necessary form prescribed under the Regulation sometime in the year 1987. Being seized of the application, it appears that the Land Reforms Officer called upon the petitioner to supply details and documents in respect of his case. It is common ground that the petitioner who had claimed the land under the Regulation produced the Alwara in his possession and otherwise no document suggesting that he was paying the annual rent (Foro) or that he was paying any house tax or any other out goings to the revenue. It appears that an inquiry was conducted under the Regulation by the Land Reforms Officer vide L.R.Case No.302/88-89 and by judgment and order dated 7th of March 1981, he rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Land Reforms Officer observed that though plot No.9 was ceded in favour of the petitioner in the year 1942, the petitioner was not in actual possession on 1.5.1974 and, therefore, he could not be granted occupancy rights. He also observed that though the land was granted in favour of the petitioner for construction of a residential house, no house was constructed by the petitioner on or before the vesting date viz. lst of May 1974. The further observation in the order is that the plot is in actual possession of the Government for the last about 20/22 years and in which the Government had even constructed and used a building called `Bal Mandir' which was under the control of the Education Department. The last conclusion made by the Land Reforms Officer was that the petitioner as a holder had not paid land revenue assessment as also the house tax concerned and for all these reasons, the land stood vested in t the Government free from all encumbrances. Revesting was denied.