Francis Kispotta v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/117/2021 Francis Kispotta ... Petitioner Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents With WPA/118/2021 Poulus Anand ... Petitioner Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents With WPA/119/2021 Lorence Minj ... Petitioner Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents With WPA/120/2021 Domnic Barla ... Petitioner Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents With WPA/121/2021 Susanti Tirkey and others ... Petitioners Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents
With WPA/122/2021 Matel Minj and another ... Petitioners Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents With WPA/123/2021 Mangal Guria and another ... Petitioners Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.
... Respondents Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ...for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ...for the respondents in WPA No.117 of 2021, WPA No.118 of 2021, WPA No.120 of 2021, WPA No.121 of 2021 and WPA No.122 of 2021 Mr. Tulsi Lall Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents in WPA No.119 of 2021 and WPA No.123 of 2021 September 27, 2022 [MAM] Item Nos.12-18 It has been submitted by Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate representing the petitioners that on the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners were favoured with an order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated January 29, 1998, directing the relevant Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to treat the writ application as the representation of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their possession over the forest lands in question.
Mr.
Jayapal submits that till date the said respondent has not taken any decision following the said order.
By filing this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners again have renewed their prayer for regularisation of their possession over the lands in question.
In course of hearing of these petitions, it has been submitted by all the parties appearing before the Court that regularisation of possession with regard to the lands in question cannot be decided by the forest authority; it can be decided only by the concerned revenue authority. In fact, in these present writ petitions, the forest authorities have not been made parties. A dispute between the petitioners and the respondents has also surfaced with regard to the nature of classification of the relevant lands. It has been submitted by Mr. Agarwal led by Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the Administration that all the lands involved in these writ petitions are de-reserved forest lands and no order of regularisation can be made with regard to the forest lands.
Mr. Agarwal has further submitted that as on date there is no existing scheme under which the possession of the petitioners can be regularised.
Mr. Jayapal disputes such contention.
I am, however, not inclined to adjudicate disputes involved in this case at the first instance since the relevant revenue authority was never approached by the petitioners
for regularisation of their possession over the lands in question.
The petitioners will be at liberty to file fresh applications before respondent no.2, the Deputy Commissioner, North Andaman within a period of one month from date seeking regularisation of their possession over the lands in question. If such application is made, the said respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the claims of the petitioners. The claim for regularisation of the possession of the petitioners over the lands-in-question shall be decided by respondent no.2 strictly in accordance with law.
Accordingly, WPA No.117 of 2021, WPA 118 of 2021, WPA 119 of 2021, WPA 120 of 2021, WPA 121 of 2021, WPA 122 of 2021 and WPA 123 of 2021 are disposed of. (Kausik Chanda, J.)