DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY AND ORS.versusNAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS.

A               DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINICOY AND ORS.
                                          v.
                  NAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Tenancy and Land Laws :

          Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy
C Regulation, 1965: Section 121.
          South Pandaram Land-Allotment of-To inhabitants-Such in-
    habitants had only collective right of collection of coconuts and enjoyment
    thereof through their Mooppans as Trustees-Neither the Mooppans nor the
    inhabitants had right over the land or coconut trees-Mooppans as trustees
D   exercised this collective right arbitrarily-Hence notices issued for allotment
    of separate plots of land to inhabitants-Mooppans challenged these notices
    claiming 1ight of occupancy on ground of they being in occupation of said
    land on behalf of inhabitants prior to commencement of Reguiation-High
    Court allowed the claim-Held : High Court e"ed in granting right of oc-
E   cupancy to Mooppans-ln the circumstances of the case, Regulations, Rules
    and notices were valid-Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allot-
    ment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979-Constitution of India, 1950, Article
    240.

        The inhabitants of the South Pandaram Land collected coconuts
p from the trees for which purpose they were getting some remuneration in
  kind but at no point of time they had any vested right to the trees or the
  land on which the trees stood. After sometime this right was conferred as
  a collective right in favour of the inhabitants for enjoyment thereof
  through the respondents- Mooppans as trustees. When the Moppans as
  trustees arbitrarily exercised this collective right, the appellants
G promuglated Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindive Islands Revenue and
  Tenancy Regulation, 1965 under Article 240 of the Constitution of India.
  The appellants issued notices for allotting separate plots of land to the
  inhabitants in accordance with Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy
  (Allotment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979 framed under Section 121 of
H the Regulations.
                                         100
         DY. COLLECTOR MINICOY v. NAVADIGOTIII MOHAMMED                101

       The respondents-Mooppans filed writ applications before the High       A
Court challenging the aforesaid notices for allotment of plots which were
dismissed by the Single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench held that the
respondents-Mooppans were in occupation of the Pandaram Lands at the
commencement of the Regulation on behalf of the inhabitants and, there-
fore, they were entitled to their claim of right of occupancy over the land   B
in question. The Division Bench also held that the notices issued under
the Rules were only applicable in respect of fresh lands and would not
divest the persons who had already acquired right of occupancy. Accord-
ingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals. Being aggrieved the
appellants preferred the present appeal.
                                                                              c
         Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. There is no infirmity with the Laccadive, Minicoy and
Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 as well as the
Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allotment of Pandaram Land)
Rules, 1979 framed thereunder and it has been so framed in exercise of D
power conferred under Article 240 of the Constitution for the peace,
progress and good government of the Lakshadweep group of Islands. The
Regulations and the Rules sub-serve the purpose for which power has been
conferred on the President under Article 240 of the Constitution and the
Regulation and the Rules would achieve the object of allotting specific part E
of the land in favour of each individual, so that, the Mooppans will not be
able to exploit the individuals. The Division Bench of the High Court was
wholly in error in granting right of occupancy in favour of the respondents
and in quashing the impugned notices issued by the Administrator in
exercise of his power under the Regulation and the Rules framed there-
under. [105-A-C; DJ                                                          F

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11907-
11910 of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.84 of the Kerala High Court G
in W.A. Nos. 525~26, 547 and 550 of 1981.

         P.A. Chowdhary, S.P. Singh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appel-
lants.

         A.S. Nambiar, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan and P.K. Manohar for the          H
    102                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PATTANAIK, J~ Leave granted.

B         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 Lakshad-
    weep Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allotment of Pandaram Land) Rules,
    1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and challenging those notices the
    respondents herem filed writ applications. The learned Single Judge dis-
c   missed 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.

           The case of the appellants is that South Pandaram Lands are the
D   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 inh~bitants 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
E   remuneration in kind but at no point of time they had any right to the trees
    or the land on which the trees stood. Sometimes prior to 1942 the Govern-
    ment 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
F   of the people of Minicoy 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 Moopppans, the Mooppan thus as a trustee for all the
    villagers had the right to enjoy usufruct of the coconut trees for himself as
G   well as for all the villagers together and the Mooppan was distributing the
    coconuts amongst the villagers. While the Mooppans continued to enjoy
    usufruct of the coconut trees for themselves as well as for the villager!',
    gradually a demand for abolition of Mooppans system began. The ad-
    ministration considering the grievances of the villagers finally thought of
H   granting separate plots and land individually to the inhabitants and ul-
      DY. COLLECTORMINICOY v. NAVADIGOTIIIMOHAMMED (PATIANAIK, J.)       103

timately Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy            A
Regulation, ·1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation') was promul-
gated 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           B
coconut trees stood though they were enjoying the right of collection of
yield of the coconut trees standing on the South Pandaram Land and there
fore they cannot be held to have acquired right of occupancy. In accord-
ance 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       C
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         D
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 trees itself and therefore they cannot be held   E
to be in occupation of the land in question and their claim of right of
occupancy is unsustainable. 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 commence-              F
ment 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. Accord-
ingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and hence these appeals      G
by special leave.

      Mr. Chowdhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
lants contended that in view of the limited right of collection of coconuts
from the trees conferred upon the Mooppans and the inhabitants of the           H
    104                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   village without any right over the Land on which the trees stood, the
    Division Bench of the High Court was wholly in error to hold that they
    were in occupation of the land prior to Regulation coming into force. He
    further contended that the Mooppan of the village had been conferred
    certain privileges as he was representing the interest of village community
    at large. The Mooppans were acting as trustees but as complaints received
B
    from several villagers the Government decided to confer individual rights
    on the inhabitants under the Regulation and therefore there is no infirmity
    with the notices issued. Mr. Nambiar, the learned senior counsel appearing
    for the respondents on the other hand contended that the Lakshadweep
    group of Islands have its own peculiar concept of rights and the Mooppans
C   were merely representing the entire village community. There was total
    unity of enjoyment and the Moopans and the villagers had absolute right
    over the coconut trees and therefore the Division Bench rightly held that
    they held the right of occupancy which right can't be taken away by the
    Regulation or the Rules framed thereunder.
D           In view of the rival submissions at the Bar the question that arises
     for consideration is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
     right in its conclusion that the Mooppans and the villagers can be said to
     have acquired the right of occupancy over the land on which the coconut
     trees stood prior to Regulation coming into force? If it is held that right
     of occupancy had accrued in their favour then that right cannot be taken
E    away by the administration in exercise of its power under the Regulation
    and Rules framed thereunder. But on examination of the materials on
    record and the history of the bundle of rights which the inhabitants of these
    Islands were enjoying, it is crystal clear that there was no demarcation of
    any individual property. The villagers through their Mooppans were initial-
F   ly getting some remuneration for collecting and stacking coconuts. In
    course of time. they got the right to pluck coconuts from the trees but no
    specific individual had any specific right over any specific tree and it was
    a case of collective right of collection and enjoyment of the fruits through
    their Mooppans. Mooppan was acting as the trustee and was equality
G   distributing the usufruct of the coconut trees. At no point of time either
    the Moopans or any individual villager had an iota of right over the land
    or the coconut trees standing thereon. This being the position, it is difficult
    to accept the conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court that the
    respondents had acquired a right of occupancy prior to the Regulation
    coming into force. Further the so-calle9 collective rights which were being
H   exercised by the Mooppans on behalf of the villagers as trustees were
         DY. COLLECTOR MINICOY v. NA VADIGOIBI MOHAMMED (PATIANAIK,J.j   105

complained of when the Mooppans started arbitrarily exercising their A
power. After due enquiry the government decided to confer right of
occupancy over specific parts of land in favour of each individual in
accordance with the Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder. We see
no infirmity with the Regulation as well as the Rules framed thereunder
and it has been of framed in exercise of power conferred under Article 240
                                                                               B
of the Constitution for the peace, progress and good government of the
Lakshadweep group of Islands. The Regulation and the Rules sub-serve
the purpose for which power has been conferred on the President under
Article 240 of the Constitution and the Regulation and the Rules would
achieve the object of allotting specific parts of the land in favour of each
individual, so that, the Mooppans will not be able to exploit the individuals. c
      In view of our aforesaid conclusion we have no hesitation to hold that
the Division Bench of the High Court was wholly in error in granting right
of occupancy in favour of the respondents and in quashing the impugned
notices issued by the Administrator in exercise of his power under the
Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder. Appeals are accordingly D
allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 525/81 and batch is set aside. Writ applications filed by the
respondents stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s.                                                       Appeal allowed.   E