Kamal Prasad Pandey And Another v. The Deputy Commissioner And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ** WPA/253/2021 Kamal Prasad Pandey and another ... Petitioners Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and another... Respondents Mr. S.Goldar, Advocate ... for the petitioners Mr. R. Agarwal, Advocate ... for the respondents December 8, 2021 [SR] Sl.No.7 This is an application seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.03.2017 submitted by the petitioners for consideration of regularization of excess land measuring an area of about 739 sq.mtrs under survey No.993 situated at Junglighat Village, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District in terms of the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the respondent no.1.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits as follows. The grandfather of the petitioners executed a Will in favour of the petitioners and one Deena Nath Pandey in 1991. In 1993, the executant of the Will passed away. In 1995, a mutation was affected in favour of all the legal heirs. However, in 1999, the learned District Judge refused to grant probate and in 2001, a Division Bench of this Court granted probate in respect of the Will. Subsequently, a certificate of probate was also issued in favour of the petitioners. In 2003, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued a letter to the Chief Secretary of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration for regularization of excess land. In 2011, the petitioners made a representation before the revenue authorities for regularization of the excess land. On 23.06.

2013, this Court directed the respondent no.1 to decide the matter. On 20.08.2014, the respondent no.1 conducted the proceeding and passed an order. This was challenged by some private parties in a writ application before this Court and the same was dismissed on 17.03.2016.

28.02.2017, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal preferred in this regard by the writ petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners made the present representation for regularization of excess land on 20.03.2017. Yet, the same has not been taken up for consideration till date. In the interest of justice, a direction may be passed upon the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners' representation. The order passed by the Division Bench was not challenged by the appellants in the said appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, in his usual fairness, submits that the respondent no.2 would consider the petitioners' representation as would be directed by this Court. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents and have perused the application.

It appears that the representation of the petitioners for regularization of their land has been pending since long. The order passed by the respondent no.1 on 20.08.2014 was upheld by this court in a writ petition preferred by some private parties.

In view of the above and for the ends of justice, let the respondent no.2 consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.03.2017 seeking regularization of excess land in their favour as expeditiously as possible after hearing the necessary parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)