Smti.Jai Lakshmi v. Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/13/2025 Smti. Jai Lakshmi Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal .... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents February 19, 2026 [SR] Item No.24 Petitioner assails order dated November 27, 2024 bearing No.

F.No.96/LC/2019/5463 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was a licencee in respect of plot No. 25/P of village Dollygunj, Tehsil Port Blair. He refers to the licence granted by the authorities dated January 6, 1989 being Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. He submits that, the quantum of premium was to be determined by the authority. The authorities did not do so. Petitioner therefore was prevented from depositing the premium in terms of the grant of licence. He refers to several orders passed by the Court from time to time and submits that, the petitioner being a pre-1978 encroacher and a licencee, right of the petitioner in respect of the concerned plot should be recognized.

Learned Advocate appearing for the authority submits that, the authorities were directed to produce the original

records. She refers to the original records and submits that, no licence was ever issued to the petitioner. In fact, the licence in respect of plot No. 25/P was issued in favour of the different person on September 5, 1989.

The original record produced in Court was shown to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. The original records produced in Court, demonstrate that, a licence dated October 5, 1989 was issued in favour of Shri Uma Charan in respect of the concerned plot.

Petitioner relies upon a licence dated January 6, 1989 in respect of plot no. 25/P. The licence dated October 5, 1989 granted in favour of Shri Uma Charan records a measurement of 350 sq.mtrs. in respect of such plot while, the licence relied upon by the petitioner refers to 0.02 hectares. The requirement of the licencee to pay land revenue for the petitioner is stated to be Rs. 4.89 while for Shri Uma Charan, it is stated to be Rs. 4.00. The date in clause 2 is different. The blank space in clause 5 in Shri Uma Charan certificate is kept blank while, so far as the petitioner is concerned it is filled up by the date from January 1, 1989.

Original record produced in Court establishes that no licence was ever granted to the writ petitioner in respect of plot 25/P. Foundational basis of the petitioner for pay in respect of such plot does not exist.

There is no reason to disbelief the records produced by the respondent authorities in Court pursuant to order of the Court.

The impugned order records that, no licence was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject plot. Such finding is correct.

In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

WPA/13/2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

( Debangsu Basak, J. )