http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MINISTER AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAVADIGOTHI MOHAMMED AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/09/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK. J. Leave granted.      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  Lakshadweep  Land Revenue and Tenancy (Allotment of Pandaram Land) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred  to as ’Rules’)  and challenging those notices the respondents herein filed writ applications.  The learned Single  judge dismissed  the writ  applications.  In appeal the  Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgement  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  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 inhabitants 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 coconut from the trees and for that purpose they are getting  some 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 Government 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 of  the  people  of Minicoy a  new scheme was proposed and under that scheme the inhabitants were  permitted not  only to collect the coconut 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 Mooppans,  the  Mooppan  thus  as  a  trustee  for  all  the villagers had  the right  to enjoy  usufruct of  the coconut trees for  himself as well as for all the villagers together

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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 villagers, gradually  a demand  for  abolition  of  Mooppans system began.  The administration considering the grievances of the  villagers finally thought of granting separate plots of land  individually  to  the  inhabitants  and  ultimately Laccadive , Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Revenue and Tenancy Regulation,   1965   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the ’Regulation’) was  promulgated  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  coconut trees  stood though they were enjoying  the right  of  collection  of  yield  of  the coconut trees  standing  on  the  South  Pandaram  Land  and therefore they  cannot be  held to  have acquired  right  of occupancy.   In accordance  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  the respondents  herein contending inter alia that they have  acquired right of occupancy being in occupancy 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 Regulations  and 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 coconut from the trees without having any right over the land or the trees itself  and therefore  they cannot  be held  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 commencement of the Regulation  on behalf  of the inhabitants of the village and therefore  they are entitled to their claims 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  ocupancy. Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and hence these appeals by special leave.      Mr. Chowdhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants  contended that  in view of the limited right of collection  of coconut  from the trees conferred upon the Mooppans and  the inhabitants  of the  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  trustee but as complaints received 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

respondents on the other hand contended that the Lakshadweep group   of Islands  have its  own peculiar concept of rights and the Mooppans were merely representing the entire village community. There  was  total  unity  of  enjoyment  and  the Mooppans 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.      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  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 initially  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 equally  distributing the  usufruct of  the coconut trees.  At no  point of  time either the Mooppans 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-called collective  rights which were being  exercised by  the  Mooppans  on  behalf  of  the villagers as  trustees were  complained of when the Mooppans started  arbitrarily   exercising  their  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 so framed in exercise  of  power  conferred  under  Article  240  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.      In view of our aforesaid conclusion we have no hesitation to hold tha t 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 allowed. The judgement 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4