Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/87/2025 Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar Vs.

Union of India and others Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents November 03, 2025 [SR] Item No. 24 The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District dated November 27, 2024, by which the petitioner's request for allotment of land at North Bay, adjacent to survey no.153/1/P/5, was rejected. When the petitioner was the Director of Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd , some land was allotted at North Bay for pearl culture. The petitioner ceased to be a director. The licence was cancelled by the authority. The cancellation of the licence granted to Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd ,was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

However, the petitioner who appeared in the appeal proceedings was heard, but the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to his eligibility or competence to be allotted a land for his research project was not decided by the Division Bench, and the issue was left open. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for allotment of the land and the said application was rejected only on the ground that as an individual, the petitioner was not eligible to be granted the land allotment.

The eligibility policy relied upon by the authorities applies to allotment of land to the Departments of Central Government, Ministry of Defence, PRIs, Municipality etc. The said policy does not specifically deal with pearl culture. The petitioner needs to establish a laboratory on the land, to pursue research in pearl culture. The sea licence has already been granted to the petitioner, adjacent to the land at North Bay. It also appears that the Joint Director of Fisheries issued a press note inviting interested parties to submit application along with all required documents to the Directorate of Fisheries, Sri Vijaya Puram, Zonal Fisheries Office. It is contended by the petitioner that although the sea area has been allotted for pearl culture, but the petitioner who has been involved in sustainable pearl culture for many years and has been recognized as an expert in the field, requires a land area to develop the pearls. The petitioner is engaged in both off-shore and on-shore activities.

The decision impugned does not take into consideration any of such aspects urged before me, specially that, sea area licence had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Administration. The question is whether there is a total ban on any kind of activity with regard to pearl culture, on the land. Reference is further made to Rule 146 (ii), 164(iv) & (v) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reform Rules, 1968.

Although pearl culture has not been mentioned as a prescribed purpose in the rules, the petitioner relies upon the Administration's seven years strategy 2017-2024 and vision

upto 2030, in which promotion of pearl culture for generation of employment is one of the visions. The reputation of the petitioner as an expert in the filed is not in doubt. Mr. V.D.Sivabalan submits that the writ petition is not maintainable before this forum and further submits that the Division Bench has already decided the right of the petitioner to be allotted the land area. The land policy 2013 does not support the case of the petitioner. The contention of Mr. V.D.Sivabalan with regard to the issue of res judicata is not accepted. The petitioner's eligibility was never considered in the earlier round of litigation. The land allotment policy 2013 was not considered in detail in the order impugned.

Moreover, the vision of 2030 clearly indicates that the Administration has envisaged pearl culture activities for generation of employment.

The order of the Deputy Commissioner is a cryptic one, lacking in material particulars and suffers from nonconsideration of various rules, and regulations in this regard. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Secretary (Revenue) who is also the appellate authority to decide the entire issue, by treating the writ petition as the appeal of the petitioner, upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his representative.

The decision shall be taken by the concerned appellate authority within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

This Court has not decided the eligibility of the petitioner, but specifically directs the Secretary (Revenue) to decide the issue on the basis of all the documents and the past records of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )