Dulal Chandra Dey v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/24/2026 Dulal Chandra Dey Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration Mr. A.Venkatesh ... for the added respondents February 04, 2026 [AKB] Item No.8 The writ petitioner wants to improve the Occupancy Land in Survey No. 42 measuring area of 0.25 hectare classified as 'Hilly', 47 measuring area of 0.17 hectare. Classified as 'P-I', 48 measuring area of 0.1 hectare classified as 'Hilly', 49 measuring area of 0.1 hectare Classified as 'Hilly', 50 measuring area of 0.34 hectare Classified as 'Hilly', 51 measuring area of 0.87 hectare classified as 'Hilly', 53 measuring area of 0.35 hectare Classified as 'P-I', 54 measuring area of 0.73 hectare classified as 'P-I', all situated at village Chouldari, under Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman District.
The Administration did not give any permission on the ground that there are co-tenants whose view was unavailable to the Administration. The Administration also wants affidavit of undertaking from the side of the writ petitioner disclosing their intention and purpose of such proposed improvement. As the writ petitioners were directed to add other co-tenants of the Occupancy Land as described above, the writ petitioner added
three other co-tenants in the writ petition. These added cotenants are now being represented by learned Counsel, Mr. A.Venkatesh. He has categorically stated before this Court that he has received instruction from his clients not to oppose the prayer of the writ petitioner and they have no objection if the writ petitioner proceeds with the improvement of the Occupancy land after complying with necessary formalities. The learned counsel Mr. KMB Jayapal, has submitted a copy of the order dated October 10, 2023 passed in WPA/945/2023 on similar issues in support of his contention that the authorities cannot restrain the writ petitioner to carry on the improvement in the Occupancy Land, if it is done strictly in terms of the relevant regulations.
In view of the above, I find merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence the instant writ petition is allowed. The authorities are restrained from causing any hindrance, obstruction to the proposed improvement in the occupancy land as stated above provided such proposed improvement is done strictly in terms of relevant Regulation being 157 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966.
The writ petition being WPA/24/2026 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
As the affidavits have not have been invited, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)