Regulation 161’s two-year limitation is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the Tehsildar.

The petitioner sought restoration of possession by invoking the Tehsildar’s jurisdiction under Regulation 161 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (“1966 Regulation”).

The material on record indicated that the petitioner approached the Tehsildar substantially after the alleged dispossession and not within the prescribed two-year period.

The petitioner contended that the two-year period was directory and that the delay could be entertained, relying, inter alia, on Regulation 98.

Whether the two-year period prescribed under Regulation 161 of the 1966 Regulation for applying to the Tehsildar for reinstatement is mandatory or merely directory

Whether the Tehsildar possesses jurisdiction to condone delay and entertain an application under Regulation 161 filed after expiry of the two-year period

Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke Regulation 161 despite having approached the Tehsildar beyond two years from the alleged dispossession

Regulation 161(1) of the 1966 Regulation prescribes a two-year period from the date of dispossession for an application seeking reinstatement before the Tehsildar.

The prescribed period constitutes an inherent limitation on the Tehsildar’s jurisdiction, and the 1966 Regulation contains no provision conferring power to condone delay or permitting invocation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court relied on Patel Brothers v. State of Assam, (2017) 2 SCC 350, for the principle that courts cannot judicially read into a special statute a power to condone delay where the statute excludes such power, expressly or by necessary implication.

Statutory provisions must be applied as enacted, and courts cannot supplement them through judicially developed equity.

The Court held that the material established that the petitioner had approached the Tehsildar long after the alleged dispossession and outside the two-year period prescribed by Regulation 161.

Since the Regulation neither conferred discretion on the Tehsildar to condone delay nor identified any mechanism for extending the prescribed period, the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the belated claim.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to determine in the abstract whether the limitation was directory or mandatory; the decisive issue was the limitation inherent in Regulation 161 and the absence of any statutory power to extend it.

Applying Patel Brothers, the Court declined to create an implied power of condonation contrary to the statutory scheme.

The writ petition was dismissed, while the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any other remedy available in accordance with law.

Parties were permitted to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.