Shri. Susheel Dixit v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/62/2025 Shri Susheel Dixit Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents February 7, 2025 [AKB] Item no. 5 1.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a directive to Respondent No. 2 to conclude the proceedings that were initiated based on the petitioner's application, which appears on page 58 (Annexure P-3) of the writ petition.

2.

Ms. G. Mini, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, along with several other individuals, is a joint recorded tenant of the land bearing Survey No. 269/1, which comprises an area of 0.87 hectares, situated at Gobind Nagar village, Swaraj Dweep, under the Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District. She further submits that, due to inconvenience in jointly possessing and enjoying the land, the petitioner filed an application requesting the subdivision of the land. Based on this application, a proceeding vide. RC No. 90/GIS/2023/DC(SA) was initiated. However, despite a considerable period of time having passed, no logical conclusion has been reached in the proceeding, which prompted the petitioner to prefer this writ petition. Ms. Mini submits that a direction be issued to the concerned respondent to expedite the disposal of the proceeding.

3.

Ms. Babita Das, learned Advocate, submits that since several individuals, in addition to the petitioner, are involved in the proceeding and should also be given an opportunity to be heard, some time is required to conclude the proceeding.

4.

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, I am of the view that there is no justification for keeping this writ petition pending. Therefore, based on the submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the writ petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No. 2 to conclude the proceeding, RC

No. 90/GIS/2023/DC(SA), after affording an opportunity for hearing to all persons interested in the land.

5.

It is clarified that if the proceeding is decided in favour of the petitioner, the subsequent follow-up action shall be undertaken by Respondent No. 2. Conversely, if any decision prejudicial to the petitioner's interests is made in the proceeding, a reasoned order shall be passed, and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)