Nepal Mondal v. The Lieutenant Governor And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/255/2024 Nepal Mondal Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and others Ms. Anjili Nag .... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration June 13, 2024 [SR] Item No.10 The private respondents filed a suit against the petitioner as well as the respondent authorities, inter alia, seeking declaration of possessory right, title and interest over the disputed property, a decree directing the respondent authorities to regularize the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and for consequential reliefs.

In the said suit, the respondent authorities also filed a written statement where it was disclosed that the regularization of the plaintiff could not be claimed as the scheme on which the plaintiff relied was an one-time scheme and had since lapsed. In the suit, on the prayer of the plaintiff/private respondent, an order of status quo was passed directing the plaintiff as well as defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 i.e. the present petitioners, to maintain status quo in respect of the property till the disposal of the suit or until further order, whichever is earlier.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite such status quo order being passed, the respondent authorities, subsequently in the year 2019, granted a fresh licence in favour of the private respondent, going against the grain of the status quo order.

It is further submitted that alleging inaction on the part of the police administration in not providing adequate support and assistance to the private respondent, a writ petition had

been previously filed by the private respondent, giving rise to the WPA/9/2023, which was disposed of on September 25, 2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, where it was observed, inter alia, that since status quo was extended in respect of the entire suit property and it was the specific case of the private respondent (writ petitioner therein) that the Survey No.137/2 is segregated from the larger Survey No.137, the order of status quo had some impact in respect of the segregated portion as well.

As such, the petitioner seeks cancellation of the licence granted in favour of the private respondent primarily on twofold grounds - first, the same is in violation of the status quo order and secondly, in view of the respondent authorities themselves having taken a stand in their written statement that the private respondent was not entitled to regularization, the grant of licence subsequently is contrary to such stand. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities points out that the said authorities were not restrained by the status quo order.

Moreover, it is argued that the grant of licence to the private respondent on the premise that the private respondent falls within the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category was initiated as long back as in the year 2016. The grant of licence in the year 2019 was the culmination of such process and was automatic.

Thus, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the grant of licence to the private respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities also submits that the grant of licence was under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana which is entirely different from the scheme in respect of which the plaintiff has sought regularization in the suit. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that by virtue of the status quo order dated October 04, 2018 only the plaintiff (private respondents) and the defendant nos.4, 5 and 6 (present petitioners) had been directed

to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. There was no such restraint order against the respondent authorities. Further, in the same order, learned Trial Judge had observed that the Court found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the claim against the defendant nos.4, 5 and 6.

Although it was observed by the coordinate Bench in connection with the writ petition filed by the private respondent alleging police inaction in order to implement his endeavour under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana that the status quo order passed in respect of the property might have some effect, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition was tentative and made in the passing and could not be considered to have conclusively determined the rights of the parties.

Moreover, what was observed was merely that the portion of the suit property in respect of which the licence has been granted may fall within the subject matter of the suit. Even if one proceeds on the premise that the licence has been granted in respect of a portion of the subject-matter of the suit, in the absence of any restraint order against the respondent authorities, it cannot be said that the grant of licence was contrary to the status quo order and hence illegal. Insofar as the stand taken by the respondent authorities in their written statement, the same is restricted to the averment that the plaintiff/private respondent is not entitled to regularization under the specific one-time scheme on which he claimed regularization before the Trial Court. However, the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, as rightly contended by the respondent authorities, is entirely a different and distinct scheme regarding which no comment was made by the respondent authorities in the written statement, nor was it the subject-matter of the suit.

Hence, such independent grant of licence under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, a different scheme which is not the subject-matter of the suit, that too in continuance of a

procedure which was started much prior to the filing of the suit in the year 2016, cannot be vitiated merely by the status quo order or the stand taken by the respondent authorities in their written statement in the suit. Hence, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the grant of licence by the respondent authorities in favour of the private respondent. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in contending that the grant of such licence shall abide by the outcome of the suit. Accordingly, WPA/255/2024 is disposed of without interfering with the grant of licence in favour of the private respondent but with the observation that such grant of licence shall be subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit between the parties.

No order as to costs.

Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )