Gandhari Mondal v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/249/2022 Gandhari Mondal ... Petitioner Vs.
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Another ... Respondents Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ...for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ms. Preeja Menon ...for the respondents August 25, 2022 [MAM] Item No.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction and non-action on the part of the respondent authorities in failing to discharge the Constitutional obligation to carry out necessary correction in the land record in effecting mutation of the subject land as per the sale deed dated 22.05.1997 the petitioner preferred the instant Writ application.
It has been contended by the petitioner that on the basis of valid sale deed dated 22.5.1997 the Writ Petitioner along with one Shri Druva Chandra Mandal acquired interest over the land bearing survey no.22 measuring an area 2.0200 hectare at Village Rabindra Nagar under HutBay Tehsil, Little Andaman and the said conveyance was duly registered under the provision of Registration Act, 1908.
It is further contended by Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 unlawfully mutated the subject land in the name of third party for some extraneous consideration and the civil suit seeking appropriate declaration is pending in the court of law. The Tehsildar dehors to establish procedure acted in detrimental to the interest of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner herein on 14.02.2022 by enclosing the copy of the sale deed dated 22.5.1997, requested the respondent no.2 herein to effect mutation and necessary correction in the relevant land record, but the said authority is sitting tight over the matter, as more than four months have lapsed from the date of receipt of the representation dated 14.02.2022.
No effective step has been taken to mutate and correct the land record relating to subject land. The writ petitioner has been prejudiced badly as he has been approaching the Respondent no.2 Pillar to Post requesting the authorities to act in terms of the sale deed dated 22.5.1997. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to effect mutation in connection with the aforesaid land. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents, submits that the prayer for correction in the land record has been made after 25 years of transfer and as such it cannot be considered at this stage.
Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that Regulation 93 of 1966 Regulation provided that even if such application filed after 25 years it can be entertained subject to payment of penalty for delayed filing.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, WPA/249/2022 is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 14.2.2022 filed by the petitioner, praying for mutating his name in the relevant register and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the respondents and also to any other interested parties, if any, and thereafter communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner and such parties. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is however made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the concerned respondent authorities will be free to decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law. All points including the point of delayed filing raised by the respondents, are kept open to be decided by the concerned authorities.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties after compliance of all required formalities.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)