Shri. Ritesh Lall v. Shri. Bhajan Lall And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/23/2025 IA No. CAN/1/2025 Shri Ritesh Lall Vs Shri Bhajan Lall and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vishal Kumar Biswas ... for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent No. 8 & 9 April 2, 2025 [AKB] Item No.1 The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 21st March, 2025 passed in a writ petition being WPA/437/2024. The said writ petition was preferred by the private respondents herein for implementation of the order dated 9th July, 2024 passed by the respondent no. 9 herein in the proceeding being TFG/RC/593 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as 593 proceeding) contending inter alia that the land pertaining to the said order dated 9th July, 2024 is a government land illegally blocked by the appellant affecting the respondents' right towards egress and ingress to their land.

Mr. Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, who was the private respondent in the writ petition being WPA/437/2024, submits that the learned

Single Judge erred in law in refusing to restrain the writ petitioners from implementing the said order dated 9th July, 2024 without disclosing the reasons towards such refusal and without returning any finding on the issue that the said order was not even communicated to the appellant. The said order being a cryptic one is not sustainable in law.

Drawing our attention to the document annexed at page 125 of the stay application, Mr. Jayapal submits that the said order was passed under Regulation 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Regulation) pertaining to the land bearing Survey no. 1/20 as well as Survey no. 1/3. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the competent Civil Court and an interim protection has already been granted to the appellant. Since land in both the survey numbers come under the purview of the said interim protection, the learned Single Judge erred in law in refusing to stay the operation of the order dated 9th July, 2024 in the 593 proceeding. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Single Judge and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents vehemently disputes the

contention of the appellant and submits that the appellant is attempting to regularize his illegal possession over the land pertaining to the 593 proceeding on the strength of an interim order passed by the competent Civil Court pertaining to the land in Survey no. 1/3. The said interim order passed has already been challenged in a Misc. Appeal and the same is still pending.

According to her, the land in Survey no. 1/20 and the land in Survey no. 1/3 are not inextricably bound and are distinct and separate. The order pertaining to the land in Survey no. 1/20 was passed pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 104 of the 1966 Regulation and the order pertaining to the land in Survey No. 1/3 was passed pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 202 of the 1966 Regulation. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the order dated 10th June, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting apart government land for construction of rural road and the order of the Tehsildar passed pursuant thereto, appearing at page 73 of the stay application. Mrs. Nag further submits that the order dated 9th July, 2024 in 593 proceeding had also not been independently challenged by the appellant before any forum. It is only when the private respondents herein sought for implementation of the said order by filing a

writ petition, the appellant sought to urge that there are infirmities in the said order.

Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the land in Survey no. 1/20 and land in Survey no. 1/3 are different and distinct. In respect of the 2.40 hectares of land in Survey no. 1/3 already an interim order has been passed by the competent Civil Court and as such the appellant's right stands protected.

She further submits that the order impugned in the present appeal has already been complied with and the order of the respondent No. 9 in 593 proceeding has already been implemented. A compliance report, as filed, be kept with the record.

In reply Mr. Jayapal submits that it is a well settled preposition of law that non communication of an administrative order to the person prejudiced, is a nullity and by virtue of the said order the authorities cannot forcibly evict the appellant which in fact is an excess land liable to the regularized in favour of the appellant under the appropriate scheme.

We have heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

A composite perusal of the documents annexed at page 69 and 72 being the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the respondent No. 9 would reveal

that a portion of land from the government land under Survey no. 1 was demarcated and marked as Survey no. 1/20 for a rural road. It does not appear that any objection was raised by any of the parties in course of the concerned proceedings. The eviction order in the 593 proceeding and the eviction order in the 592 proceeding are distinct and different. The former proceeding involves a land carved out for a rural road and the latter proceeding comprises of land in respect of which the appellant claims to be the recorded owner. The proceedings are not inextricably bound. In respect of the 592 proceeding, the appellant's right has already been protected by the competent Civil forum staying the operation of the order of eviction dated 9th July, 2024 passed by the respondent no. 9 in the 592 proceeding till the disposal of the suit. In the schedule of the plaint, the land under Survey no. 1/20 has also not been incorporated.

In the said conspectus, the learned Single Judge refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant providing reasons in support thereof and we do not find infirmity in said order warranting interference in the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for, the same be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)