Shri. James Lakra v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WPA/63/2023 Shri James Lakra ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and others ...Respondents Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ...for the respondents January 18, 2023 [MAM] Item No.7 In the Writ Petition order dated 23rd August, 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, being respondent No. 2 is under challenge. By the said order dated 23rd August, 2022, the respondent No. 2 has refused to allow the application of the petitioner for having the plot of land under Survey No. 192/1/4 being sub-divided in terms of Clause 69 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

On perusal of such order dated 23rd August, 2022 it appears that the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner to sub-divide the land under Survey No. 192/1/4 on the ground that there is a pendency of the Civil Suit and in addition thereto there has been consideration by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is

residing in a building constructed on the excess land contiguous to his landed property.

Mr. Sivabalan, learned Advocate representing the respondent No. 2 has said precisely aforesaid two reasons as it emanates from the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2022 led the respondent No. 2 to take decision not to subdivide the said land as prayed for. Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal, learned Advocate representing the petitioner has submitted while refuting the contention as contained in order dated 23rd August, 2022, that the Civil Suit which is pending at the instance of the petitioner relates to another plot of land not under Survey No. 192/1/4 rather under Survey No. 194. Therefore, such pendency of Civil Suit cannot create any hindrance in processing application of the petitioner for sub-dividing the land. It is also contended that under the relevant provisions of 1966 Regulation there is no impediment to allow application for sub-division in the event pucca construction is made on the excess land which is contiguous to the landed property of the applicant.

Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without granting opportunity of hearing the

impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2 unilaterally.

Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2022 it appears that before taking decision on the application of the petitioner seeking subdivision of land opportunity of being heard ought to have been extended to the petitioner since on factual consideration decision has been taken by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2022 of the respondent No. 2 stands set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to re-visit the issue within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties. The decision to be taken by the respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. However, it is made clear that the decision to be taken by the respondent No. 2 shall be in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties after compliance of all required formalities.

( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )