Shyamal Chowdhury v. The Honble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman And Nicobar Island And ANR

16.5.2025 Ct. No. 8 SB CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR

RVW 4 OF 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 in C.O. 10 of 2025 Syamal Chowdhury Vs.

The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Island and Anr.

Mr. S. N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Karkar Mr. Kritin Saraf Mr. Udipt Daga ... for the appellant CAN 1 of 2025 (Section 5)

1. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal.

2. I am satisfied with the explanation offered for not being able to the file the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay of 12 days is condoned.

3. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of.

RVW 4 of 2025

4. In view of the order passed, this petition ought to have been dismissed for forum shopping. It appears that the petitioner filed a writ petition on 03.4.2025 raising the self-same issue which has been raised in this application for review. On 13.3.2025, I have dismissed the writ petition after recording that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the present applicant to adduce oral and documentary evidence to show that initiation of proceeding was bad or any document which

would support the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly submitted that no such evidence or document are in his possession which would show that production of such evidence would have changed the complexion of the matter.

5. The subject matter of challenge before me was the order passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Island by which the learned District Judge affirmed the Estate Officer (Assistant Commissioner, (South Andaman)) under the public premises( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on 22nd December, 2021 in Eviction Case No. 2 of 2021.

6. It appears that subsequent to the said order a writ petition was filed challenging inter alia an order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in the said writ petition being W.P.A. 180 of 2025.

7. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions of the parties including the submission now sought to be raised that the petitioner is a perpetual licensee arrived at a finding that the licence to occupy the land with cultivation issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was granted w.e.f. 18.9.1989 for a period of thirty years and having regard to the facts that the said period is over, it cannot be argued now on behalf of the writ petitioner that the licence ought to be construed as a licence perpetual in nature.

8. Although, it appears that reference to the order dated 13.3.2025 was made in the order passed by Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, in His Lordship order dated

03.4.2025, however, His Lordship has independently relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Appellate Court in the earlier phrase of the litigation in which the Hon'ble Division Bench inter alia observed as follows;- "Undisputedly the period of licence granted on 18th September, 1959 was thirty years which expires in the midnight of 17th September, 1959'. Such finding as arrived at by the Hon'ble Appellate Court had not been challenged before the higher forum and as such the observations made in the said judgement had attained finality."

9. In view of such finding, it is no more open for the writ petitioner to re-agitate the issue in the garb of review. On such consideration the application stands dismissed.

10. In view thereof the applications being RVW 4 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 are dismissed.

11. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Soumen Sen, J.)