Shri Benadict Bernadsha v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/152/2021 Shri Arulandy ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. G. Mini ...for the Petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...for the Respondents October 03, 2024 [M.A. Mobin] Item No.23 It is submitted at the behest of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued with license for 0.80 hects. of land under the pre-78 regularization policy bearing Survey No. 255/155 at Bimblitan village which is under occupation of the petitioner till date.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that in pursuance to the licence the petitioner paid the premium determined by the Govt. and after acceptance of the premium, the Revenue Department finalized the records by issuing record of rights in favour of the petitioner. It is said by the petitioner that although land revenue was paid to the Revenue Department upto 2016 for the subject land but thereafter the respondent no. 4 did not collect the land revenue for the year 2016-17.

It is further said on behalf of the petitioner that on inquiry with the respondent no. 4 came to know that the license issued to the petitioner under Pre-1978 regularization policy over revenue land has been cancelled in the year 2002 while issuing licenses to the legal heirs of petitioner's father. This petitioner with separate family came to this islands during early part of 1970 and encroached another patch of revenue land at some distance from the land encroached by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner obtained the certified copy of the concerned file and note and came to know that the said license which was granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the wrong assumption that the petitioner and his father are the same family but actually it was not the case.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority raised objection against the contention made on behalf of the petitioner and said that as per policy prevailing in this island, the land is to be allotted to the one of the family members but as the petitioner and the father are the same family he has to no locus standi to file this present writ petition.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have gone through the materials on record. It is said by the petitioner that he has filed a revenue petition dated 27.05.2019 before the office of the

respondent no.2 but it has not yet been disposed of for the best reasons known to him.

Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to dispose of the revenue petition dated 27.05.2019 filed by the petitioner by passing a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of communication of the order as per relevant provision of law and communicate the order passed by it over the petition made by the petitioner to the parties concerned immediately thereafter.

The respondent no.2 is further directed that the opportunity of being heard should be given to all the necessary parties before passing any order in connection with the petition filed by the petitioner.

Liberty is hereby given to the parties to produce their documents in support of their contention before the respondent no.2.

Thus, WPA/152/2021 stands disposed of.

Parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)