Shri. Bipad Mondal v. The Deputy Commissioner And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WPA/62/2023 Shri.Bipad Mondal
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner and others Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the petitioner Mr.V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the respondents March 23, 2023 [AKB] Item No.19 This is a hearing matter. Affidavit-in-opposition had been filed as would be evident from order dated February 21, 2023. Affidavit-in-reply had also been filed thereto. The petitioner claimed to be a joint recorded tenant with his brother one Sri. Bimal Mondal under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in respect of a plot described at paragraph 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner then claimed to have sub divided the plot. The petitioner intended to transfer the tenancy in respect of the plot in favour of his widow daughter. He applied before the respondent authority.
The authority rejected the prayer for transfer of the property principally on two counts, firstly, the petitioner had encroached some portion of the land beyond the permissive occupation of the petitioner and secondly, the petitioner indulged in commercial activity from the said plot of land which was not permissible under law and is in basic violation of the conditions of the grant. The petitioner had challenged the order of rejection passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 through this writ petition at page 9 to 14 to the affidavit-in-opposition.
Mr. Arun S. Kumar, learned counsel lead by Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the rejection was made by the
appropriate authority after causing due fact finding inquiry. This writ Court should not go for further fact finding inquiry.
Considering the rival contention made on behalf of the parties and considering the materials on record, it appeared that order of rejection was not passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is a fact that, by virtue of the possession granted as recorded tenant to the petitioner concerned, a right had been created in his favour and to decide anything on that right, might have civil consequences, for that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner. In view of the above, the orders of rejection passed by the respondent No. 2 appearing at pages 9 to 14 to the affidavit-in-opposition are set aside and quashed. The respondent No.
2 is directed to revisit the issue on the basis of the existing materials on record before it and also in the light of the case made out in the writ petition and the opposition and reply filed in connection therewith, upon giving at least seven days prior hearing notice to the writ petitioner the other co-recorded tenant, namely, Sri. Bimal Mondal or in the event he had died his recorded legal heirs and representatives and after giving them an opportunity of hearing shall decide the issue by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
The entire exercise as directed above shall be carried out and completed by the respondent No.2 positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner and the said Sri. Bimal Mondal and /or his legal heirs and representatives as the case may be positively within a further period of one week from the date of said reasoned order to be passed.
It is made clear that, this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner in any manner.
It is further made clear that, this order shall not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioner, if the petitioner is not eligible to receive his claim strictly in accordance with law.
On the above terms, this writ petition being WPA/62/2023 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)