Goutam Saha And ORS v. Jayashankar Alia Jayanta Das And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MA/1/2024 IA No.CAN/4/2024 Goutam Saha and others Vs.

Jayashankar Alias Jayanta Das and another Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the appellants Ms . Dolly Saha ... appellant No.3 (in person) Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the respondent No. 1to 4 Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the Administration July 31, 2024 [SR] Item No.13 By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected application are taken up together for hearing. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 10, 2023, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in WPA/945/2023 being a writ petition filed by the private respondents herein. The appellants were not parties to the writ petition. Leave was granted to the appellants to prefer the instant appeal.

The private respondents herein, through their constituted attorney, filed a writ petition praying for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities from raising any obstruction to development of the plot of land in question, by the writ petitioners, under Regulation 157 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

The learned Judge noted that there is no dispute that the private respondents herein being Shri Gowri Shankar Das and Jayanta Das are the recorded tenants in respect of the concerned plot of land. The learned Judge noted the contents of Regulation 157 of the 1966 Regulations. Her Ladyship noted that the said provision permits a tenant to make improvement in respect of his holding. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations and directions. "Since the tenants are entitled to make improvement in the holding for better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use in terms of the Regulation 157, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the tenants, being represented by the petitioner, to improve the plot in question strictly in terms of Regulation 157 of the Regulation 1966.

The authorities are restrained from causing any obstruction to such improvement provided such improvement is done strictly in terms of the relevant Regulation." The appellants say that they are the recorded tenants of the plot in question being Survey No/Plot No.181 measuring about 4 hectares. The plot was purchased by their predecessorin-interest Maya Rani Saha way back in 1976. The property was mutated in the name of the present appellants. The present writ petitioners/private respondents approached a learned Judge of this court by filing WPA/311/2021 with the grievance that an order had been passed on November 18, 2021 by the Tehsildar deleting their names as recorded tenants and substituting the names of the present appellants. According to the private

respondents herein, this was done without granting them any opportunity of hearing.

By an order dated March 21, 2022, the learned Single Judge quashed the Tehsildar's order dated November 18, 2021 and directed him to grant an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners therein and pass a reasoned order. The present appellants say that in that writ petition, the present appellants were not made parties.

It appears that based on the aforesaid order dated March 21, 2022, fresh hearing was held before the Tehsildar and the names of the present appellants were removed as recorded tenants. The names of the present private respondents were recorded as tenant of the concerned plot of land. The present appellants say that such proceeding was held without serving notice on all the recorded tenants i.e. Shri Goutam Saha, Smt Radhika Saha, Urvi Sha, Mauri Saha, Smt Dolly Saha and Shaily Saha. Learned advocate says that only 4 out of those 6 persons were served. Two persons were not served as would appear from the records which have been produced by the Administration in Court today. Be that as it may, the fact remains that on the date when the private respondents herein approached the learned Single Judge in the present round of litigation, they were shown as recorded tenants of the plot in question. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the appellants should have been made parties to the respondents in the writ petition.

The appellants however say that there has been gross suppression of material facts on the part of the private respondents herein. They did not apprise the learned Single Judge that they have filed a suit in the competent civil court challenging the sale deed that had been executed in respect of the plot in question in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein. Moreover, the proceeding before the Tehsildar which culminated in deletion of the names of the appellants as recorded tenants and substitution of the names of the private respondents herein as recorded tenants, was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, such order of the Tehsildar is bad in law.

As regards suppression, we find that there is mention in the writ petition that a suit has been filed by the private respondents herein, challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein. We also find that there is an interim order of injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the private respondents in respect of the plot in question.

As regards the order of the Tehsildar whereby the names of the appellants herein were deleted as recorded tenants of the concerned plot, the appellants will be at liberty to challenge such order before the competent forum in accordance with law, upon notice to the private respondents.

In the facts and circumstances afore-stated, we find no infirmity in the order under appeal. On the day the learned

Judge passed the order, the private respondents/writ petitioners were the recorded tenants and they still are the recorded tenants. It will of course be open to the appellants to assail the order by virtue of which the private respondents are the recorded tenants as we have indicated above. We request the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair to expedite the hearing of the suit filed by the private respondents herein being Title Suit No.66 of 2021 and conclude the same as soon as possible and preferably within a year from the date of communication of this order.

The interim order that was subsisting in this appeal stands vacated.

No observation in this order shall have any bearing on the hearing of the suit pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair.

The appeal and the connected application are disposed of accordingly.

( Arijit Banerjee, J. ) ( Sugato Majumdar, J. )