Shri.Salam @ K. Abdul Salam And ANR v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/171/2025 Shri Salam @ K . Abdul Salam Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Ms. G.Mini .... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents March 21, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1.

This is the third round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the Tehsildar passed an order on 24th July, 2019 in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.11.2015 in WPANo.368/2015 whereby the Tehsildar was directed to consider the application dated 27.09.2011 for mutation after giving an opportunity of hearing by a reasoned order. The Tehsildar, by the impugned order, rejected the application with the following observation:- "In pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, an hearing was held on 12/07/2019 in which the petitioner had produced a copy of Form "H" depicting the entry of mutation in Mutation Register at No.253 dated 1191. But mere an entry in the mutation register does not establish the actual recoded tenant Late Moosa Hajee of the impugned land."

2.

The said order however recorded that the earlier mutation case was not traceable and a fresh revenue case vide TPB R.C. No.2029/2016 was initiated and a report was called for from the Area Patwari, which reads as follows:

"The area Patwari reported that the land bearing sy.No.582/1 and 583/4 area 57 Sq.mtrs and 47 sq.mtrs respectively situated at village Buniyadabad are found entered in the Khasra in the name of Moosa Hajee but these landed property are not recorded as allotted in the name of Moosa Hajee, as such action under the relevant provisions of A & N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation

1966 could not be processed further affecting the desired mutation.

3.

The order was challenged in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge set aside the said order, inter alia, on the ground that having regard to the fact that Form F is a government document and it has not been questioned and the other documents produced by the petitioner, the Tehsildar could not have denied mutation. However, the appeal court set aside the order and directed fresh adjudication by the Tehsildar. The Teshildar was directed to take into consideration that in respect of the similar property situated at Haddo Village of Late Moosa Haji, mutation was granted favour of the petitioners. 4.

Consequent upon the said direction of the appellate court dated 04.10.2024, a fresh order has been passed by the Tehsildar declining mutation. The grounds for rejection are almost similar to the grounds on which the mutation was denied on 24.07.2019.

5.

The petitioner is in possession of the land in question and he claimed title over the said immovable property by virtue of the Will.

6.

The Form-F, in the remark column, reads as follows:- " Allotted vide DC Order No.4/124/66-R dtd 13/5/66 allotment of alternative land at buniyadabad to Shri K. Moosa S/o Kunjara of haddo will be considered separately."

The said Form-F is in accordance with Rule 132. It is a Record of Holding Register prepared on 18th October, 2017.

7.

At page 48 of the said documens, name of the tenant was shown as Moosa Hajee S/o Kunjars. These documents were not in dispute.

8.

The Khasra Register also recorded the name of the grandfather of the petitioner namely Moosa Haji as a recorded tenant. This document which is also a government record is also not under challenge.

9.

The Tehsildar has also not taken into consideration the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench in deciding the said application for mutation which requires the said authority to take into consideration that in respect of similar property situated at Haddo Villgae mutation was granted in favour of the petitioner.

10.

When the record clearly establishes that the properties are recorded in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, it is too late in the day to contend that such entry made, in the computerized land record was by mistake. It has not been stated when such mistake was first detected. The fact stated in the remark column of Form-F at page 43, Annexure P-7 is not in dispute.

11.

The allotment of land at Buniyadabad to Shri Moosa by way of allotment of alternative land is not in dispute. It even refers to the date of the allotment.

12.

On the teeth of such documents brought on record by the petitioner, it was not possible for an authority to contend that the deceased testator was not allotted in respect of two plots in question This issue was never raised during the life time of Moosa.

13.

On such consideration, the order of the Tehsildar dated 09.12.2024 is set aside. The Tehsildar is directed to consider the mutation application in accordance with law on the basis of the aforesaid observations within a period of four weeks from date.

14.

The writ petition succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents.

( Soumen Sen, J. )