SHIV RAM Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant carries an order dated March 18, 2009 dismissing a writ petition. The writ petitioner had assailed an order of December 13, 2007 passed by the Tehsildar of Ferrargunj, in effect, recalling an order dated May 15, 2007.

(2.) The writ petitioner appears to be one of the eight heirs of one Bacchan who was the recorded tenant of land bearing survey Nos. 119, 141, 118, 94 and 95 covering a total area of 3.94 hectares at village Port Mout. The writ petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his favour which was allowed under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation). Some of the other heirs applied on June 20, 2007, complaining of the mutation of the land in the sole name of the writ petitioner. There were several anomalies in the application filed by the other heirs who are the private respondents herein. The application was made before the "Court of the Tehsildar at Ferrargunj" and was styled as "revenue revision No. ...of 2007." The applicants invoked section 28(1) of the said Regulation which, in fact, is the provision for an appeal from every original order passed under the said Regulation or the rules made thereunder. In the body of the application, the applicants complained of having been misled and of having no notice prior to the mutation being effected. The applicants referred to themselves as appellants and sought stay of execution of order dated May 15, 2005 and for joint mutation of the land in the names of all legal heirs of Bacchan.

(3.) The Tehsildar received the application under section 35(1) of the said Regulation. Such provision speaks of stay of execution of an order passed by a revenue officer by the same officer or by his successor in office to enable an appeal or revision being carried from the original order. The Tehsildar read the application as one for revision of the order dated May 15, 2007. The Tehsildar noticed shortcomings in the proceedings that culminated in the "impugned mutation." He saw that affidavits relating to alleged no-objection given by some of the other heirs did not appear in the records; that the applicant for mutation (the writ petitioner-appellant herein) had failed to furnish the list of all the legal heirs of the originally recorded tenant; that some legal heirs had complained of the mutation being allowed solely in favour of the writ petitioner herin; and, of the notice in Form-J and summons in Form-K being improper and the order-sheet not showing the signatures of all concerned.