Ishtiak Ali v. The Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/41/2022 Shri Ishtiak Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Ananda Halder ...for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ...for the Respondent no.1 April 09, 2024 (M.A.Mobin) Item No.3 1.

This Writ application has been filed with the following substantive prayers:

i. Set-aside the impugned order dated: 09-022022 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason.

ii. Direct the respondent No.1 to recommend the case for issuence of the licence of the excess land bearing survey No. 2494/3, area 462 Sqmts, situated at South Point village, under Port Blair Tehsil in the sole name of the petitioner under regularisation scheme.

2.

The petitioner's case is that the grandfather of the petitioner was a settler pre-1942 of the land measuring 622 sq. mtrs. having Survey Nos.2494 and 2495 situated at South Point village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District prior to 1961. Remaining area of land measuring

519 sq. mtrs. out of 1141 sq. mtrs. of land bearing Survey nos.2494 was under occupation of grandfather and thereafter father of the petitioner. After his father's death the petitioner herein is in possession of the said land till date.

3.

The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs published a scheme for regularization of the excess land in possession of the settler pre-1942, in the year 2003. Thereafter, A & N Administration invited the claim from the settlers who are in possession of excess land. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted necessary application before the Administration, but that was kept pending for an indefinite period. The petitioner filed a Writ application before this Court being WPA No.118 of 2020. This Court vide orders dated 24th February, 2021 directed the respondent no.1/Assistant Commissioner(Settlement) to dispose of the representation dated 21.5.2020 filed by the petitioner within 8 weeks from date.

4.

Accordingly, the respondent no.1 issued notice fixing a date for hearing on 28th October, 2021. In spite of the progress up to the issuance of notice the matter was not disposed of and this petitioner was compelled to file a contempt application being CPAN no.002 of 2022. 5.

As a sequel, the respondent no.1 hurriedly disposed of the matter on 09.2.2022 without considering the representation dated 21.5.2020 and ultimately refused the claim of the petitioner.

6.

Learned Advocate Mr. Ananda Halder appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the documents annexed with Writ application submitted that Government of India invented the scheme of regularization of excess land under the occupation of pre1942 settlers which was communicated to the Chief Secretary, A & N Administration on 15th July, 2003. Thereafter, notice was issued in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner by Tehsildar for conducting survey.

7.

Mr. Halder also referred to the recommendation for regularization dated 03.10.2007 wherefrom it is found that in Column no.341 the land measuring 462 was shown in joint possession of the petitioner with his mother and two brothers.

8.

Mr. Halder has drawn my attention to the Death Certificate of the mother of the petitioner and submitted that though mother of the petitioner died on 18.7.2006 but recommendation was made on 03.10.2007 showing joint possession of mother of the petitioner over the excess land and accordingly license was also issued showing joint possession of mother of the petitioner.

9.

Mr.

Halder has further submitted that one representation was made thereafter for necessary correction of the license as mother of the petitioner died prior to issuance of license and other two brothers were already allotted a portion of excess land under the scheme of 1987.

10.

The representation was for correction of the license in the joint name of the petitioner along with her mother (since deceased) and two brothers. That representation was kept pending and the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before this Court and obtained a direction upon the Assistant Commissioner(Settlement) to dispose of the said representation within eight weeks.

Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner(Settlement) passed the impugned order dated 9th February, 2022.

11.

Learned Counsel Mr. Arun S. Kumar also admitted that a portion of excess land was already allotted in favour of the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein i.e. two brothers of the petitioner. Mr. Kumar also not disputed that mother of the petitioner died in the year 2006.

12.

Therefore, I do not find any reason for not allowing the representation of the petitioner with regard to exclusive possession of rest excess land measuring 462 sq. mtrs. 13.

On scrutiny of the impugned order, I find that Assistant Commissioner(Settlement) did not consider the written submission, as asked for, by the petitioner disclosing the death of mother of the petitioner as well as allotment of portion of excess land in favour of his two brothers. It is also stated in the written submission that other two brothers did not claim over the land-in-question. 14.

Considering all facts circumstances, Assistant Commissioner(Settlement) is directed to consider the written submission on behalf of the petitioner dated

13th December, 2021 regarding death of mother of the petitioner and allotment of excess land in favour of two of his brothers and recommend accordingly for correction of license dated 27.12.2008 within four weeks from date. 15.

With the aforesaid observation, Writ application stands disposed of.

16.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.2.2022 stands set aside.

17.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.

[Bibhas Ranjan De, J.]