A.Zaheed v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/159/2014 Shri A.Zaheed ... Petitioner Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Administration And others ... Respondents Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents December 16, 2022 [SR] Item No.27 The petitioner challenges the order dated 17th June, 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District. By the said order, the petitioner's claim for regularisation of excess land of 125 Sq.mtrs under a Scheme of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 15th July, 2003, was rejected.

The Scheme dated 15th July, 2003 was to identify and regularize land in the possession of Pre-1942 settlers within the PMBC area and those holding excess land prior to the year 1961 without levy of premium. For the said purpose, the Administration was to ascertain as to whether the excess land was being continuously occupied by the original claimants and/or their descendants. The Administration was also required to carry out the survey to identify the pre-1942 settlers.

Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order on the ground that the documents and the survey reports relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner were not made available to him. He has therefore been denied Principles of Natural justice. This Court firstly notices that the Deputy Commissioner was acting in terms of an order dated 14th February, 2014 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP No.44 of 2014. It is explicit, clear and unambiguous from the order that the petitioner only had 200 sq.mtrs of land originally. The excess land of 125 sq.mrs being claimed by them had already devolved and settled in favour of the original tenants/descendants of the larger area. The question of the petitioner's encroaching or occupying excess land as claimed, therefore did not and could not have arisen. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner was based on the report of the Tehsildar.

The other ground for rejection of the claim is that the petitioner by no stretch of imagination, could be deemed as a pre-1942 settler, since his mother came into possession of the land in the year 1961.

In the backdrop of the undisputed finding of fact as above, the petitioner cannot have any claim as made out in the writ petition.

The alleged violation of natural justice as urged by Mr. Jayapal may not be sustainable in the facts of the case as the

records based on which the impugned order was passed, was never sought formally from the respondents by the petitioner. This argument therefore is an after-thought.

In those circumstances, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner.

WPA/159/2014 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )