Shri. Shyamal Chowdhury v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/180/2025 Shri Shyamal Chowdhury Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents April 03, 2025 [SR] Item No.8 The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 22nd December, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2.

Records reveal that the petitioner initially challenged an order of eviction dated 15th June, 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in a writ petition being WPA/153/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 7th December, 2017 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner observing, inter alia, that the said officer had no jurisdiction to pass the said order and directed the Administration to hand over the possession of the property in question to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being MAT/6/2018, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 28th September, 2021 setting aside the portion of the order for restoration of possession. It was further observed that in the event the Administration does not initiate proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act), the order of the Single Bench directing restoration would automatically revive.

Subsequent thereto, the Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under section 4 of the said 1971 Act and upon hearing the petitioner, a final order was passed on 22nd December, 2021 directing the petitioner to vacate the land. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was also disposed of on 24th January, 2025 affirming the order of the Estate Officer. Challenging the said order, the petitioner again preferred a revision application being CO/10/2025 but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 13th March, 2025. Thereafter, the Estate Officer has issued an order on 26th March, 2025 directing the respondent no.3 herein to execute the order passed by the Estate Officer on 22nd December, 2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. Ms. G.

Mini, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the fact that in respect of the concerned land, a licence was issued by the authorities is admitted. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that the petitioner was granted a licence under the Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, (hereinafter referred to as the 1926 Regulation) and not a grant under Regulation 4(1)(a) of the 1926 Regulation.

Subsequently, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Regulation) came into effect and drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Chapter XIII, she submits that as a licencee under the 1926 Regulation, the petitioner would be entitled to the protection as conferred upon a licencee under the 1966 Regulation. As the said licence has not been cancelled, the order of eviction could not have been passed.

She further submits both the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was given a grant in spite of the specific observation of the Hon'ble Appellate Court that the petitioner was granted a licence. An eviction order passed contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Appellate Court is a nullity.

Drawing the attention of this Court to Regulation 4 of the 1926 Regulation, she submits that a licence granted under Regulation 4(1)(b) of the 1926 Regulation is a licence perpetual in nature and without terminating such licence, the respondents could not have passed any order of eviction. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition and others vs. M/s Andaman Timber Industries and others. Such arguments, as advanced, before the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority were totally glossed over.

Ms. Babita Das learned advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the Administration denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner cannot split up her claims and approach this Court repeatedly. The order of eviction has already attained finality since both the Appellate Authority as well as the revisional Court did not interfere with the same. Drawing the attention of this Court to the licence which was issued by the competent authority, she argues that it would be explicit from the same that the licence to occupy the land with cultivation for long live crops, as issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was granted with

effect from 18th September, 1959 for a period of thirty years. Admittedly the said period is over and as such it cannot be argued on behalf of the petitioner that the licence ought to be construed as a licence perpetual in nature.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Appellate Court, it was observed, inter alia, that 'undisputedly the period of licence granted on 18th September, 1959 was thirty years which expires in the midnight of 17th September, 1989'. Such finding as arrived at by the Hon'ble Appellate Court had not been challenged before the higher forum and as such the observations made in the said judgment had attained finality. Thereafter the proceeding under 1971 Act was initiated and the eviction order was passed which has been affirmed both by the Appellate Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CO/10/2025. In the said conspectus, the petitioner cannot reinvigorate her claim which has already attained finality.

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.

( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )