Smti.Y.Sunitha v. The Superintending Engineer And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/116/2026 Smti. Y.Sunitha Vs The Superintending Engineer & Anr.

Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra ... for the Respondents March 16, 2026 [AKB] Item No.7 1.

This writ petition has been filed for inaction on the part of the respondent authorities for not considering the claim of the present petitioner for providing electricity connection in the dwelling house of the petitioner.

2.

Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father Y.Raja Rao encroached an area of 200 sq.mtrs. in the land bearing survey No.1/P situated at Garacharma village under Port Blair Tehsil way back in the year 1977 and since then they are residing there by raising a construction of dwelling unit and their occupation and peaceful possession was never interfered.

The petitioner had constructed the dwelling house in the said land but could not get the connection as she was not conferred with title by the competent authority .A scheme was introduced in the year 2003 whereby it was mandated that the encroachers who were found in the Govt. land up to March 1993 are entitled to get electric connection and the petitioner's case squarely falls under the said policy.

3.

It is the further case of the petitioner that in order to give effect to the policy decision the Joint Secretary (UT), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi sent a letter to the Chief Secretary, A&N Administration, Port Blair to implement the said policy by sanctioning electric and water connection to the people who were residing provide electricity and water connection to the people who were residing on the revenue land up to March, 1993.

4.

The petitioner submitted an application on 10.02.2026 along with affidavit and necessary documents praying for installation of electric connection but no fruitful result yielded though on receipt of the application that respondent authorities wrote a letter to the Tehsildar on February 10, 2026 for verification, confirmation and correction of particulars of the petitioner's land on question even after laps of one month no reply has been given and the electricity connection has also not been provided.

5.

The learned advocate representing the respondent authorities submits that a report is furnished by the Assistant Engineer whereby it is apparent that the property is in vulnerable condition however admitted no reply to that extent has been given to the petitioner.

6.

The learned advocate further submits that application is under process and will be dispose of shortly. It is further submitted that the scheme as mentioned by the petitioner was of 2003 and the cut of date was of 1993 but it is the specific case of the petitioner that he has encroached the land in the

year 1977 and hence his entitlement of electricity under such scheme is questionable.

7.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and upon hearing the learned Counsels representing the respective parties it appears that the dispute essentially pertains to the grant of an electric connection to the dwelling house of the petitioner, who is alleged to be an encroacher. Furthermore a report of Assistant Engineer is received by the respondent authorities in respect of the vulnerable condition of the house in respect of which the connection has been prayed for. Primarily a dispute is also raised regarding the entitlement of the grant of electric connection under the scheme of 2003. However when the application as submitted by the petitioner is yet to be disposed of , calling for an affidavit at this stage is not necessary. It would be appropriate for the respondent no.2 before whom the application is pending, to first decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the electricity connection or not in accordance with law.

8.

Hence the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the application filed before the authority by passing reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and such exercise is to be completed within a period of four weeks from date.

9.

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

10.

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

11.

Parties are directed to act on the serve copy of this order to e downloaded from the official website of this court. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)