Smti. Suniti Joydhar v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/95/2026 Smti. Suniti Joydhar Vs The Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Anr.

Mr. Lokesh Chezian N ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Respondents March 11, 2026 [AKB] Item No.11 1.

Affidavit of Service be kept with the record. 2.

Heard the submissions of both the learned Counsels. 3.

The instant writ petition is filed since the representation filed by the present petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District at Port Blair as well as Tehsildar is pending for consideration since long.

4.

The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the father of the writ petitioner was recorded tenant of the land bearing Survey No. 10, 46/1, 46/2 and 48 measuring an area of 1.67 hects., 2.13 hects., 0.04 hects. and 0.21 hects. respectively situated at Radha Nagar village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, South Andaman.

5.

After the demise of the father the name of the present petitioner and his brother and sister being the legal heirs of the said deceased late Uma Charan Halder were duly mutated. A suit for partition was filed and a preliminary decree was passed in the said Title Suit No. 32 of 2008 in favour of the petitioner against which an appeal has been filed. The said appeal was withdrawn because of an amicable settlement arrived at

between the parties which was recorded in the order dated 22.02.2022.

The present representation was filed on 16.02.2016 i.e. before the said settlement order was passed by the learned Court.

6.

In view of the above change of circumstances and considering the submission advanced by the learned advocate representing the petitioner as well as the learned advocate representing the respondents, this Court is of the view that the a fresh representation is required to be taken out by the petitioner incorporating the subsequent developments . 7.

Accordingly the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation incorporating all the necessary information before the concerned authority qua the respondent no 2, within a week from this date .

8.

The respondent No. 2 is directed to dispose of the said representation if any be filed by the petitioner ,by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of one month therefrom. 9.

It is pertinent to mention herein that due to not disposing of the representation made before the authority in the year 2016 the instant writ petition I being filed . 10.

Hence it is expected that the Respondent No. 2 is expected to comply with this direction and dispose of the representation to be filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time period as directed by this Court.

11.

In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of. 12.

No order as to the costs.

13.

It is further made clear that since no affidavit in opposition has been called for to controvert the allegations contained in the writ petition the allegations are deemed to have been not admitted.

14.

Parties to act on the server copy of the order. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)