The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS v. Upen Chandra Biswas

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/11/2025 [IA NO: CAN/1/2025] The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs.

Upen Chandra Biswas Ms. Babita Das ... for the appellants Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the respondent February 07, 2025 [SR] Item No.7 1.

Appeal and the stay application are taken up together in presence of the learned advocates representing the parties. 2.

In the appeal, order dated 7th November, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge whereby upon consideration of facts, direction was given to return 0.70 hectares of land under survey no.14/P to the writ petitioners. 3.

It needs to be recorded herein that by the impugned order dated 7th November, 2024 four writ petitions were disposed of and all the writ petitioners were heirs of Late R.C.Biswas who was the predecessor-in-interest of the entire piece of land measuring 3.11 hectares.

4.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that out of 3.11 hectares of land, 2.41 hectares was sold by the predecessor-ininterest of the writ petitioner to one P.K.Govindan Nair and rest of the land measuring 0.70 hectares remained with the

predecessor-in-interest and subsequently same devolved upon the writ petitioners, who are brothers and sisters. 5.

A case is made out that there was no dispute with regard to 2.41 hectares of land which was transferred to one P.K.Govindan Nair and utilizing rest of the land measuring 0.70 hectares, a road was constructed by Military Engineering Services (MES). Taking note of the issue, that 0.70 hectares was utilized either by Administration or by MES for constructing road, direction has been given in the impugned order dated 7th November, 2024 to return the said land measuring 0.70 hectares or any alternative land of same area of equal value, location and importance needs to be returned to the petitioner by the Administration or by MES. 6.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there was no formal acquisition proceeding initiated for acquiring said 0.70 hectares of land for construction of road which was made by MES. But fact remains, MES constructed the road utilizing said 0.70 hectares.

7.

Question arises how MES got the authority to utilize said 0.70 hectares of land for construction of road without following due process of law and in absence of acquisition proceedings as it has been submitted by learned advocate representing the appellants.

8.

Unfortunately, MES authority was not made party to the connected writ petition. Therefore, MES authority is not before us today. On the contrary, in the impugned order dated 7th

November, 2024, learned Single Judge directed that said piece of land or any alternative land measuring 0.70 hectares needs to be returned either by the Administration or by MES. Therefore, we find representation on behalf of MES is necessary to decide the lis.

9.

In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not have any other alternative but to remand the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration after amendment of cause title of the writ petition thereby adding MES as additional respondent. 10.

Accordingly, writ petition stands revived.

11.

The impugned order dated 7th November, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge stands set aside.

12.

Learned advocate for the writ petitioner is directed to amend the cause title of the writ petition by seven days from date and add MES as additional respondent.

13.

After such amendment is carried out, learned advocate for the writ petitioner is directed to serve notice upon MES authority enclosing copy of the writ petition and the order passed by us today by ten days thereafter and file affidavit of service before the learned Single Judge.

14.

List the writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the next available Circuit after the time fixed hereinabove for carrying out amendment and service of notice upon the additional respondent.

15.

On receipt of service of notice, MES authority shall be at leave to file affidavit-in-opposition by two weeks thereafter. 16.

Appeal and connected application stand disposed of. 17.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )