Shri. R.John Bose v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/64/2025 Shri R. John Bose Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents February 10, 2025 [AKB] Item no. 7 1.

The legality and propriety of the order dated 03.02.2024, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, directing the Tehsildar to remove the illegal structure constructed by the petitioner on the land bearing Survey No. 1210, situated at Calicut village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District, has been called into question.

2.

Pursuant to that order, the Tehsildar issued an order on 05.02.2024, directing the petitioner to vacate the unauthorized occupation of the land. The order also included a default clause stipulating that if the petitioner fails to do so, the unauthorized occupation will be removed by the revenue officer, and the materials will be confiscated on 15.02.2025.

3.

Ms. G. Mini, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that based on an application filed by the private respondent, Smti. A. Gomathi, a proceeding, R.C. No. 1961/TSVP/2023, was initiated. On 21.08.2023, a stay order was passed, directing the petitioner to stop construction on the land until its demarcation. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to vacate the stay order. However, Smti. A. Gomathi directly approached the concerned Sub Divisional Officer with a plea that, despite the stay order, the petitioner continued construction on the land.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer intervened in the matter and, by an order dated 03.02.2025, concluded that the petitioner had illegally occupied an area of 23 sq.mtrs. of Survey No. 1210 by constructing an RCC structure thereon. The Sub Divisional Officer, claiming to have exercised the powers vested in him under Regulation 28 and 32(3) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, directed the Tehsildar to remove the illegal structure constructed by the petitioner from the land. Acting on this directive, the Tehsildar concluded the proceeding by an order dated 05.02.2025 without granting the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. 5.

Ms. G. Mini, learned Advocate, submits that if this petition is disposed of by directing the Tehsildar concerned to conclude the proceedings after affording an opportunity for hearing to all interested parties, the private respondent will not be prejudiced.

6.

By an order dated 07.02.2025, this Court requested Ms. Babita Das, learned Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, to take instructions in this matter. Ms. Das, upon receiving instructions, submits that the private respondent herein approached the Sub-Divisional Officer after the stay order was passed, and by that time, the proceeding initiated under Regulation 161 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, had not been disposed of. The proceeding was disposed of only by the order dated 05.02.2024, in compliance with the order of the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer passed on 03.02.2025. Ms. Das, in her usual fairness submits that as per the Regulation 28, an appeal is provided only against final/original order passed in proceeding initiated under Regulation 161.

7. Thus, it is evident that Smti. A. Gomathi approached the concerned SubDivisional Officer during the pendency of the proceeding, R.C. No. 1961/TSVP/2023. Without considering the fact that the said proceeding was still pending before the Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order on 03.02.2025. Accordingly, since the order dated 03.02.2025 was not in accordance with the regulations, it is flawed, and the order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Tehsildar in reliance on the order dated 03.02.2025, cannot be sustained. In light of this, if both orders are set aside and the Tehsildar is directed to dispose of the proceeding after affording Smti. A. Gomathi an opportunity for hearing, she will not be prejudiced.

8. In view thereof, both the orders passed by the Sub Divisional officer concerned on 03.02.2025 and by the Tehsildar concerned on 05.02.2025 are set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to conclude the proceedings after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the private respondent and after considering all aspects.

9. The Tehsildar is directed to make a sincere effort to fully resolve the issue by demarcating the land of both the petitioner and the private respondent. It is further specified that this demarcation shall be carried out in the presence of both the petitioner and the private respondent.

10. It is clarified that the entire process shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. ( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )