Shri.Ameet Singh v. The Eviction Officer And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA FMAT/3/2025 SHRI AMEET SINGH ... APPELLANT VS.
THE EVICTION OFFICER AND OTHERS ...
RESPONDENTS WITH FMAT/4/2025 SMTI. SAPNA RANI ... APPELLANT VS.
THE EVICTION OFFICER AND OTHERS ...
RESPONDENTS WITH FMAT/5/2025 SMTI. ALKA RANI ... APPELLANT VS.
THE EVICTION OFFICER AND OTHERS ...
RESPONDENTS
For the Appellants :
Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal For the respondent No.1 :
Ms. A.S. Zinu For the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 :
Ms. Babita Das Heard on :
February 18, 2026 Delivered on :
February 18, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1.
Three appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they involve the same plot of land. Similar issues are also involved. 2.
Appeals under Section 28 K of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 directed against an order passed by the Competent Authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 D of the Act of 1994 in Eviction Case No. 06/Amar Singh/2024 dated March 03, 2025.
3.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants in all three appeals submits that, plot No. 61/8 is involved. He submits that, the appellants in the three appeals constitute the entire body of owners of plot No. 61/8. In support of his contention that the appellants before us are owners of plot No. 61/8, he relies upon various documents including Form F issued under
Rule 132 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968. He submits that, such documents constitute title of the appellants in respect of plot No. 61/8 is concerned. He contends that each of the appellants are in actual physical possession of this plot No. 61/8. 4.
In course of hearing of the three appeals, we noticed that the impugned order relates to survey No. 66. Therefore, we enquired of the parties as to whether or not plot No. 61/8 and plot No. 66 are same.
5.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants in the three appeals submits on instructions that, given the schedule in the impugned order, although, the schedule records survey No. 66, it essentially is directed against plot No. 61/8. 6.
Coordinate Bench, called for a report from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
7.
Report was submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of an affidavit affirmed on August 04, 2025. 8.
In such report, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that, plot No. 66 measuring an area of 0.1000 hectares situated at Lamba Line village recorded in the name of Ram Dayal was acquired for the purpose of extension of Aerodrome. Subject
land was resumed and allotted to the Public Works Department for extension of Aerodrome on October 28, 1965. 9.
Such report also goes on state that, survey plot No. 66 measuring an area of 0.1000 hectares situated at Lamba Line village was mistakenly entered in computerized land records available in the websites in favour of the Government Revenue Department. Requirement for correction was also noted. 10.
The third paragraph of such report states that, land claimed by the appellants, were acquired and allotted in favour of Public Works Department for the purpose of extension of Aerodrome.
11.
In course of hearing of the appeal, we inquired of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants in all the three appeals as to whether, his clients were accepting the report of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as true and correct or not. His answer is in the affirmative, that is to say that, all the appellants in three appeals are accepting the report of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as true and correct.
12.
Given such report therefore, the only inference possible is that, the property in question over which the appellants in three appeals claim interest, were acquired by the government and
that, the same were made over to the Public Works Department for the purpose of extension of an Aerodrome. It is also acknowledged in the report that, entry in the Record of Rights are incorrect and that they should be corrected. 13.
Extension of an Aerodrome is for a public purpose. 14.
None of the appellants are able to establish any right, title and interest in respect of the plot No. 66 which was the subject matter of requisition in the year and made over for the purpose of expansion of the aerodrome.
15.
No material is placed before Court to suggest let above establish that the order impugned is vitiated by any material illegality warranting an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16.
It would not enure to the benefit of the public at large in continuing with the order of stay as granted initially. Moreover, all the appellants before us were heard before the authority passing the impugned order. Impugned order contains reasons as to why contention of the appellants were not accepted. We do not find any perversity in the impugned order requiring our interference.
17.
FMAT/3/2025, FMAT/4/2025 and FMAT/5/2025 are dismissed, without any order as to costs.
18.
Interim order, if any, stand vacated.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
19. I agree.
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)