Shri.S.Appa Rao v. The Lt.Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/114/2026 Shri S. Appa Rao Vs The Lt. Governor & Ors.

Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the Respondents March13,2026 [AKB] Item No.3 1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non action and inaction on the part of respondent authority in not issuing the licence in favour of the petitioner pertaining to the land, bearing Survey No.635, area measuring 350 sq. mtrs situated at Wimberlygunj Village under Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman District.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a handicapped person having disability of 45% and a disability certificate to that extent was issued in his favour on 8th June, 2006. The petitioner served under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration as Lower Grade Clerk for long and he retired from the post of Office Superintendent in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. While working as Lower Grade Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction, Andaman Public Works Department he applied vide a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District in the year 1989 for allotment of house site being an handicapped person. He also made an application on 15.11.1991 to the Deputy

Commissioner, South Andaman District intimating that he is a handicapped and landless person and requested to allot a house site in his favour under a relevant scheme introduced by Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare. 3.

On the representation of the petitioner for allotment a favourable report was submitted by the Patwari from the revenue authorities and recommended that the land bearing Survey No. 635 measuring an area 650 Sq. mtrs. be allotted in favour of the petitioner situated at Wimberlygunj village. On the basis of such report a recommendation proposal was made for allotment of the said land in his favour and the Tehsildar submitted a report on February 03, 1992 to the Assistant Commissioner.

4.

It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that the said land classified has 'hilly' stands recorded in the in the name government revenue department out of which 350 Sq. mtrs. land was earmarked for allotment in his favour and accordingly a sketch map was also proposed to be given to the petitioner as prepared by the revenue authorities. Since thereafter no steps was taken by the authorities when the petitioner made series of representations starting from November 13, 2016 and lastly in the year 2023 requesting the Deputy Commissioner to issue licence in respect of the above land. He personally approached the Deputy Commissioner on several occasion in order to ascertain the fate of his representations but till date nothing has been issued in his favour and no reply as been given in respect of the

representations made. The petitioner is now a senior citizen and without any allotment of land being a disabled handicapped person.

5.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents raises objection and submits that the facts are disputed and more so the present writ petition is barred by limitation. However, it is admitted that when the application was made housing scheme was valid to be provided to the handicapped person, which is not in force as of now. 6.

Having heard both the learned counsel and going through the materials on record carefully, it is explicitly clear that the authorities have acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner by failing to give any response to the representations made by the petitioner, who is a differently-abled person having 45% disability. Even assuming the contention of the authorities that the scheme is no longer in existence, it is not disputed that at the time when the representation was submitted by the petitioner, the scheme was very much in force. Therefore, failure of the authorities to respond to the representation has resulted in unnecessary delay and harassment to the petitioner which definitely amounts to infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

7.

Since the application was made long back and lastly in the year 2023 the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application incorporating all the necessary documents and the facts narrated by him in his earlier representation along with the

previous application forthwith and the respondents authority is directed to dispose the same by passing appropriate and reasoned reply or order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving of such application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8.

Hence the writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.

9.

Since no affidavit has been called for the allegations contained in the writ application are deemed to have been not admitted.

10.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order to be downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)