Smti. Surina Roy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/27/2026 Smti. Surina Roy Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the private respondent.

June 08, 2026 [SR] Item No.10 1.

This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Single Judge on February 25, 2026, dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available to her under Regulation 28 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent and the appellant are embroiled in a dispute relating to their adjacent plots. The private respondent has been unsuccessful in obtaining a decree for khas possession in a civil suit filed by him in Title Suit No.28 of 2013. The said decree dismissing the suite was passed on 25th July, 2022.

3.

It is thereafter that the private respondent approached the Tehsildear of the concerned district to cause demarcation of the land. The said demarcation has been done by the concerned

authority. It is this demarcation which has been challenged by way of the writ petition.

4.

The appellant/writ petitioner submits that the mischief of Regulation 28 of the said Regulation applies only if the "original order" has been passed by the said concerned authority, the Tehsildar herein. Only if such an order has been passed, the aggrieved party has a right of preferring an appeal therefrom. 5.

He further submits that the present order is a mere report and cannot be construed as an original order under any circumstances. Hence, the provision of Regulation 28 of the said Regulation specifying an appellate forum from such orders does not apply in this case. Thus, the impugned order of February 25, 2026 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the appellant by way of an appellate forum is clearly erroneous. 6.

Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate appearing for the authorities fairly submits that this is not the final order and is merely a report. However, she submits that the Tehsildar has taken necessary steps, including giving notices to the concerned parties for holding hearing of the matter, which has been stalled, primarily on account of the writ petition being moved by the appellant herein.

7.

Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that the prayers in the writ petition are completely different from the prayers made by the appellant at the time of hearing. The writ petition, according to him, seeks setting aside of the entire proceedings undertaken by the

Tehsildar, which is impermissible in law, since the Tehsildar has not yet concluded the proceedings. Thus, the writ petition is pre-emptive and premature.

8.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

9.

We have also perused the records of the case in great detail.

10.

As it appears from the records, the appellant is the beneficiary of a decree passed in a civil suit by the concerned Court between the appellant and the private respondent. This decree, resulting in dismissal of the suit filed by the private respondent has not been brought to the notice of the Tehsildar, nor was there any opportunity to bring the same to his notice as the hearing has not been held. It is however true that the report relied upon by the parties appearing at pages 38 and 61 of the paper book dated 12th December, 2024 is clearly not the original order.

11.

Not being such an original order as contemplated under Regulation 28 of the said Regulation, it cannot be held that the appellant has an alternative or efficacious remedy by way of an appeal.

12.

In view of afore-stated, we deem it fit to modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the limited extent as hereunder.

13.

Since no order has been passed, we direct the Tehsildar to complete the entire proceeding upon notice to all parties in this appeal by August 31, 2026 upon taking into consideration

all relevant facts and circumstances, including the decree passed by the learned Civil Court.

14.

With the afore-stated direction, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost.

15.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)