Shri.S.Durai Swamy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/215/2025 Shri S. Durai Swamy Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents April 11, 2025 [SR] Item No.11 The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 4th March, 2025 passed by the respondent no.2. By the said order, the respondent no.2 has refused to register the sale deed and the gift deeds due to contravention of Regulation 159(2)(ii) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to the 1966 Regulation). Ms. G. Mini, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that Regulation 159(2)(ii) of 1966 Regulation cannot be applied in the present case since the petitioner was transferring land from the original plot which itself is less than two hectares. Stating such facts, the petitioner submitted a representation for reconsideration of the issue on 6th March, 2025 but the same has not been considered as yet.

She further submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a writ petition being WPA/685/2022, which was disposed of by an order dated 10th April, 2024 directing the concerned authority

to register the deed. The said judgment supports the petitioner's claim.

She further submits that there are instances where the respondent no.2 has registered deeds transferring portion of land from plots measuring less than two hectares and as such the respondents cannot apply a different yardstick in the present matter.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, however, opposes the petitioner's prayer and submits that the judgment upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.

Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the issue needs reconsideration and may be relegated the competent authority.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to reconsider the petitioner's representation dated 06th March, 2025 and to take a reasoned decision, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

It is made clear that in the hearing before the respondent no. 2 the petitioner would be at liberty to place reliance upon the order passed in the earlier writ petition being WPA/685/2022 as well as the transfer deeds pertaining to plots of land less than two hectares.

As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

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. )