Surender Barraik v. The Lt,Governor And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/38/2023 Surender Barraik Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and others Mr. K.Vijay Kumar .... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents January 19, 2024 [SR] Item No.3 The petitioner submits that, although the brother of the petitioner (since deceased) was given a licence to occupy land in a de-reserved block, and such licence was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Middle and North Andaman, Mayabunder, the revenue records were not corrected, by incorporating the name of his brother in the Holding Register.

According to the petitioner, such licence was given after the petitioner's brother had vacated the encroached area from a reserved forest block. Since the brother expired, the petitioner prays for incorporation of his name and allotment and demarcation of land on the death of his brother. The brother of the petitioner (since deceased) was unmarried and the petitioner claims to be his surviving heir. A notice had also been issued asking the petitioner to take physical possession. Reliance has been placed on such notice.

Learned advocate for the respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner was not correct. The petitioner had neither moved away from the encroached area nor vacated the forest block. The encroachment still continued. The question of

correcting the records, as prayed for by the petitioner, would not arise. The land had neither been physically handed over, nor demarcated.

It appears from the records that the licence was given to the brother of the petitioner. Prior to the said licence, a notice was also given to the petitioner's brother to vacate the encroached area and to shift to a de-reserved block. The licence was granted to the petitioner's brother on December 30, 2003 in respect of the survey/plot no. 498 measuring area 1.00 hectare situated at Paschimsagar village at Diglipur Tehsil. A notice dated August 8, 2006 was issued to the petitioner, which is on record. The petitioner denies the allegation of not having vacated the forest area.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the authorities should decide the matter in accordance with law and communicate such decision to the petitioner. The entitlement of the petitioner or other heirs of the deceased, shall be decided by the authority. This Court has not decided on such issue. This Court also has not gone into the question of deceased heir. The Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman District, Mayabunder, shall treat the writ petition as a representation of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law, upon hearing the petitioner or his authorized representative as also the Sub Divisional Officer, Middle and North Andaman and the Divisional Forest Officer, North and Middle Andaman, Diglipur. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. This court has not gone into the merits of the issue involved. As directed, the authorities should decide the matter. None of the allegations are deemed to be accepted.

The writ application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )