Shri.Sanjeet Roy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/201/2025 Shri Sanjeet Roy Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents February 04, 2026 [AKB] Item No.16 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 21.09.2022 a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in WPA/2/2022 has been pleased to issue the following direction upon the Administration.

"I am of the view that Mr.Jayapal is right in contending that when the respondent no.2 arrived at a decision relying upon the report of the relevant Tehsildar, the said report ought to have been served upon the petitioner to enable him to deal with the content of the report. By not supplying the copy of the report, respondent no. 2 has failed to comply with the principle of natural justice. The order impugned is liable to be set aside on that ground alone and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondent no.2 will hear the matter afresh only after serving a copy of the report of the Tehsildar to the petitioner. Let such exercise be completed within a period of one month from date. The petitioner shall be again afforded an opportunity of hearing before respondent no.2. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of the order that may be passed by respondent no.2.

Accordingly, WPA/2/2022 is disposed of."

According to Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal inspite of such direction the Tehsildar did not provide him a copy of allotment order in the name of one Sukharanjan Roy. It is also alleged that the father of the writ petitioner Ramesh Chandra Roy was the

actual allottee and how and on what basis Sukharanjan Roy was allotted such land is not properly understood. The Administration has failed to produce any document on the basis of which Sukharanjan Roy was shown as allottee of the relevant land. As the Administration is not providing any document showing the basis on which the name of Sukharanjan Roy is shown as an allottee of the relevant land, the writ petitioner is unable to understand the actual state of affairs. According to Mr. Jayapal, Ramesh Chandra Roy was the actual allottee of the said land. In this regard, he has relied upon one copy of khatuni register annexed with the writ petition.

Ms. Babita Das has opposed the prayer. According to her, the relevant order dated 26.03.2025 clearly shows that the petitioner was given the copy of the report of the Tehsildar dated 10.11.2021 and therefore, it is not correct that the Tehsildar is not furnishing the relevant report to the writ petitioner.

After considering the submission of the learned counsel of the parties this Court finds that the writ petitioner wants to know the basis of allotment of the subject land in favour of Sukharanjan Roy. It is true that the case No. RAC No. 815/62 dated 18.09.1962 is mentioned in the extract of Khasra register. However, it is also true that the matter relates to very old records. However, the Administration should take steps to provide the copies of documents of such RAC No. 815/62 dated 18.09.1962 to the petitioner for understanding as to why such

land was allotted to Sukharanjan Roy. As the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court was not complied with in letter and spirit, I think the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District of South Andaman is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside.

The respondent no. 2 is directed to provide the copies of documents as mentioned in RAC No. 815/62 dated 18.09.1962 showing the allotment order in favour of Sukharanjan Roy after giving a fresh hearing to the learned counsel of the petitioner. Such exercise should be completed within twelve weeks from date.

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 201 of 2025 is thus allowed.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)