Shri. Newazesh Ali @ Nawazesh Ali v. The Tehsildar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** FAT/1/2025 [IA NO: CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025] Shri Newazesh Ali @ Nawazesh Ali Vs.

The Tehsildar and Another Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents No1.

Ms. A.S.Zinu ... for the respondent no.2 March 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 Re: CAN/1/2025 (Condonation of delay) 1.

There is a delay of 2 days in preferring the appeal. Considering the averments made in the petition and having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 2.

CAN/1/2025 stands disposed of accordingly.

Re: FAT/1/2025 with CAN/2/2025 3.

This is a statutory appeal arising out of an order passed by the Eviction Officer, Airports Authority of India in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 28D of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 as amended by the Airports Authority of India Amendment Act, 2003.

4.

The appellant has found to be in unauthorized occupation in respect of the land measuring 154 sq.mtrs in

survey No.68 out of total area of 2300 Sq.mts situated at Lambaline, Port Blair, South Andaman.

5.

From the impugned order, it appears that the present appellant refused to conduct and participate in the demarcation proceeding in absence of adjacent tenants namely Md. Ibrahim, Md. Hussain and Md. Quasim. The said demarcation was initiated by the Airports Authorities in which it is alleged that the appellant has not participated.

6.

It appears that the appellant has relied upon a setback permission from the Deputy Commissioner and claimed that by reason of such permission, the land starts from the main road should be the relevant point for the purpose of demarcation. The order of the Deputy Commissioner has also been placed. 7.

The Eviction Officer, on consideration of rival contention made the following observations :

"After careful consideration of the documents submitted by the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that the application (AAI) has established their case by way of placing various documents issued by the Government Authorities and further found that the respondent has failed to provide any legal basis for his occupation of the land. The occupation of the land by the respondent is in violation of AAI Act and constitutes unauthorised possession as the respondent neither has been granted any lease, permission or other lawful right to occupy the land in question. Hence, the applicant has proved their case."

8.

However, it is not clear from the said observation which of the documents the authorities found to be relevant for the purpose of arriving at a finding against the appellant and in favour of the Airports Authorities.

9.

It is incumbent upon the authorities to give a reasoned order. It may not be elaborate but it should touch upon the relevant facts and the issues involved with some clarity. In view of the fact that the said order is appellable, it is necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to indicate the documents and relevant facts in the order in order to enable the Appellate Authority to understand the basis of the findings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority. It was on that ground alone, we are setting aside the order. However, since the issue which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the demarcation proceeding has taken place behind his back, a fresh demarcation proceeding may be initiated by the Tehsildar which shall include the survey number of the petitioner namely 70/2/1. The service of notice upon the learned advocate for the appellant namely Ms. G. Mini shall be deemed to be valid service of notice upon the appellant.

10.

In the impugned order, we find reference of Estate Appeal No.01 of 2020 dated 12.09.2024. If that document is found to be relevant and held against the appellant, copies of the said proceeding shall be made available to the appellant in order to enable the appellant to make proper representation. 11.

The exercise of demarcation shall be completed within a fortnight from date upon service of notice at least of 72 hours prior to such demarcation.

12.

The appellant shall be at liberty to file objections against the demarcation proceeding, if feel aggrieved. The Eviction Officer shall consider all such objection and dispose of the

eviction proceeding by a reasoned order. The Eviction Officer shall conclude the proceeding within eight weeks from the date of completion of survey proceeding in terms of the order. 13.

The impugned order is set aside for the reasons as indicated above.

14.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the matter.

15.

The appeal and the connection application are disposed of.

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