Shri.Ranajit Chowkidar v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/19/2025 Shri Ranajit Chowkidar Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan ... for the respondents March 10, 2025 [SR] Item No.20 1.

The appellant is aggrieved by a portion of the order by which the respondent authorities were directed to treat the writ petition as representation and dispose of the said representation upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by a reasoned order.

2.

Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision for resumption of possession and unless there is a clear act of surrender the question of possession by way of resumption does not arise. The regulation does not provide for resumption without express act of surrender.

3.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent authorities have alleged that the property was surrendered on 10th February, 1989 and the father of the present appellant namely Fakir Chand Chowkidar did not occupy the said land and had not paid the land revenue for twenty two years and subsequently during the year 1989 the same land had been resumed by the competent authority, the Tehsildar, Mayabuder. It was further alleged that after the death of Fakir Chand

Chowkidar, son and daughter of Chowkidar has forcibly entered into the land, during the year 2003 and had been residing there and being planted fruit bearing trees.

4.

Learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant was prima facie able to establish that there has been no abandonment of the holding and the procedure prescribed is to be followed before there could be resumption of possession only upon arriving at a finding that there has been abandonment of the holding by the Sub Divisional Officer, who is required to make an enquiry prior to the decision being taken either with regard to abandonment or resumption of possession consequent upon abandonment.

5.

Admittedly the appellant is in possession.

6.

The appellant was adequately protected as impugned notice by which the respondent authorities try to take possession of the land from the appellant has been stayed. 7.

It is in essence an application for correction of record of rights which according to Mr. Jayapal has in column 13 has a remark deserted followed by a recording that "holding has been resumed" on 14.02.1980 on the basis of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner being competent authority. This finding was claimed to be perverse having regard to the continuous and nature of possession of the appellant.

8.

In view of the aforesaid backdrop, we direct the petitioner to file a representation along with all documents in support of his claim over the land in dispute within four weeks from date and the Tehsildar after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, shall dispose of the representation by a reasoned order within a period of six

months from the date of filing of such representation without being influenced by the observations being made in the impugned order or in this order. The aforesaid direction are peremptory.

9.

The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent. 10.

The possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed till a decision is taken by the Tehsildar, Mayabunder, in accordance with law, provided representation is filed within four weeks from date.

11.

The appeal stands disposed of.

( Soumen Sen, J. ) (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. )