Prem Kishen v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/105/2020 Prem Kishen Vs The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others With WPA/103/2020 Harish Kishen Vs.
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others With WPA/104/2020 Ram Kishen Vs.
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others With WPA/106/2020 Pernita Devi Vs.
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others With WPA/71/2021 Prem Kishen Vs The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others
With WPA/72/2021 Harish Kishen Vs The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K.M.B Jayapal [through virtual mode] Mr. C.Mano ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents November 22, 2023 [SR] Item No.13, 14, 15, 16,17,18
1. All the matters involve similar questions of law and fact and are disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners are all aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman with regard to the third demarcation of the property and construction of the writ petitioners.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to the order passed on 13th January, 2020 in CO/056/2019, has passed an order on 21st January, 2021.
4. The Deputy Commissioner has passed a direction to vacate the government land and also to remove the obstacle which impedes the free use of the recognized road/village common land. This order of the Deputy Commissioner is under challenge.
5. These writ petitions were filed on 1st March, 2021. One of the principal grievance of the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner has relied upon certain documents without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners to make appropriate submission with regard to such documents.
6. Mr. Chakraborty learned counsel appearing for the Administration submits that the Deputy Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order that inspection was carried out in presence of the writ petitioner and as such the allegation that any documents or evidence was taken into consideration without the knowledge of the writ petitioner is clearly unsustainable.
7. Mr. Chakraborty has also raised a point of maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy.
8. It is not in dispute that the impugned orders are appellable and the appellate authority can decide the issues if an appeal is filed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
9. Mr. Jayapal has also submitted that the writ petitioners may be given opportunity to prefer an appeal by excluding the time spent in this Court.
10. In view of the fact that the writ petitioners have proceeded bonafide, notwithstanding the alternative remedy available to the writ petitioners, in the event the statutory appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from date, the appellate authority shall consider the said appeal on merits and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the appeal.
11. The writ petitioners shall, simultaneously while filing the appeal, serve adequate copies of the appeal upon the authorities concerned.
12. The authorities concerned shall not proceed with eviction of the petitioners until the disposal of the appeal.
13. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the order and the order by which I granted stay of the impugned orders is to enable the petitioners to avail statutory remedy and on a satisfaction being recorded that prima facie the petitioners were not heard in relation to certain documents relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. However, this observation shall not influence the appellate authority in deciding the appeals, if it is filed, on merits.
14. These writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid direction; however, there shall be no order as to costs.
( Soumen Sen, J. )