Shri. C. Raju v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/45/2025 Shri C. Raju Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents March 20, 2025 [AKB] Item No.15 1.

Challenging the order dated 16th January 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman whereby the petitioner's request for correcting the name of his deceased father in the land records in respect of land bearing Survey No. 152/46 having an area of 1 ha in Beodnabad Village, Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil was rejected, the instant petition has been filed.

2.

The understand the challenge in this petition it is necessary to note down the facts. Previously, a writ petition was filed challenging determination of an identical issue by order dated 22nd July 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District.

When such order was challenged a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA/272/2024 by its order dated 20th June 2024 by taking note that the respondents had decided

the cause, without supplying the petitioner copies of the documents relied on, while setting aside the order dated 22nd July 2013 whereby the petitioner's application for correction of his father name had been rejected, directed the Deputy Commissioner before proceeding further in the matter, to ensure that copies of all documents relied on including, the report filed by the Tehsildar, Port Blair is handed over to the petitioner in order to enable the him to deal with the same. The order further provided that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to furnish documents in support of his application with a further direction to decide the same expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing such order.

3.

Although, the aforesaid direction was not complied within the period specified in the above order, however, subsequently by an order dated 16th January 2025 the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of documentary evidence and the report filed by the Tehsildar had come to a conclusion that Chinnappa Gounder and Chellappa Gounder are two different persons, as such claim of the petitioner for correcting the name of his deceased father in the land records which is recorded in the name of Chellappa Gounder S/o Karuppan Gounder, who is a different person cannot be

allowed.

It also appears that the Deputy Commissioner had also placed reliance on the High-Powered Committee list while taking a decision and rejecting the petitioner's application. 4.

The petitioner would complain that despite the previous order passed by a Coordinate Bench this Court on 20th June 2024 directing the Deputy Commissioner to make available all documents, such direction has not been complied with.

According to the petitioner the order is not sustainable and should be set aside.

5.

Ms. Babita Das learned advocate, appears on behalf of the respondents. She would submit there is no irregularity in the order. The order passed is well reasoned and as such no interference is called for.

6.

Heard the learned advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record.

7.

I find although, an opportunity was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition on 5th February 2025 permitting the respondents to file affidavit-inopposition, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. From the statements made in the petition read with the order impugned it would transpire that the Deputy Commissioner had relied on a detailed report from the Tehsildar and the list of a

High-Powered committee which were not supplied to the petitioner. The aforesaid appears to be in derogation of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 20th June 2024 and is also violate of the principles of natural justice.

8.

Considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 16th January 2025 had disposed of the petitioner's request for correction of the name of his father in the Record of Rights without affording the petitioner the relevant documents for him to respond to the same, I am of the view that aforesaid order cannot be sustained and should be set aside on such ground alone. 9.

The Deputy Commissioner is, directed to decide the petitioner's application, afresh, upon making available all documents which the Deputy Commissioner seeks to rely on. Such documents must be made available along with the notice intimating the date of hearing. The petitioner shall be at liberty to respond to the aforesaid documents by filing written submission, if so advised and shall also be entitled to produce additional documents provided the same are filed along with written submission on or before the date of hearing.

Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application upon

giving him opportunity of hearing with a prior notice, and by passing a reasoned order.

10.

It is made clear that this Court has not decided the matter on merits and the order impugned has only been set aside on technical grounds.

11.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/45/2025 is disposed of. 12.

There shall be no order as to costs.

13.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for, the same be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

( Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. )