Shri Shaktivel v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

S/L 1 In the High Court at Calcutta 29.04.2025 Circuit Bench at Port Blair Court. No. 19 Suvayan WPA 226 of 2025 Shri. Shaktivel Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors.

Mr. KMB Jaypal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. C. Mano ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi Ms. Babita Das ...for the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Arul Prasanth ...for the private respondent.

1.

By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically against the respondent no. 3 for quashing and/or resending and/or cancelling the order dated 22.04.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 3/authority whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3/authority has passed an order for vacating the unauthorized occupation of the land bearing survey no. 34/1/14 (wrongly typed as 34/1/40) situated at Lamba Line village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil on or before 30.04.2025. 2.

In course of his submission Mr. Jayapal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset submits before this Court that as a matter of fact the present writ petitioner is in lawful occupation of survey no. 34/1/15 in the self-same village pursuant to a deed of sale as executed on 18.05.2015 a

copy of which has been annexed at page nos. 25 to 43 of the instant writ petition. It is further submitted that from page no. 44 of the instant writ petition it would reveal further that the name of the writ petitioner was duly mutated in respect of the said plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15.

3.

It is further submitted by Mr. Jayapal that since the writ petitioner's plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 is contiguous to plot bearing survey no. 34/1/14 the writ petitioner reasonably apprehends that by dint of the order under challenge dated 22.04.2025 the writ petitioner may be evicted without due course of law by the respondent no. 3/authority for which the instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for passing interim order in terms of prayer no. iv of the instant writ petition. 4.

Per contra, Mr. Prasanth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent, however, contends that the writ petitioner has not approached before this Court with clean hands. It is submitted by Mr. Prasanth that the writ petitioner is actually in forceful and wrongful possession in plot bearing survey no. 34/1/14 and the same would be evident from the copy of the judgment dated 27.02.2024 as passed in OS No. 18 of 2021 (Shri Sakthi Vel vs. Smti. Sarala Baidya) as disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Port Blair, A and N Islands. It is submitted by Mr. Prasanth that from the copy of the said judgment as passed in OS No. 18 of 2021 it would reveal that the writ

petitioner's contention as plaintiff that he is in occupation of the plot bearing survey no. 34/1/14 has not been considered in the said suit favourably which is why the said suit was dismissed and challenging the said judgment the writ petitioner being the plaintiff/appellant though filed Title Appeal No. 5 of 2024 before the learned District Judge, A and N Island but the said appeal was also dismissed.

5.

At this juncture, Mr. Prasanth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent also draws attention of this Court to page no. 93 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the order dated 18.03.2025 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in SAT 2 of 2025. It is submitted by Mr. Prasanth that while dismissing the said Second Appeal a Division Bench of this Court came to a definite finding that the plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 is under occupation of one Mathew Joseph. It is thus submitted by Mr. Prasanth that the contention of the writ petitioner that he is in occupation of the plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 has got no leg to stand upon. 6.

It is further submitted by Mr. Prasanth that there cannot be any justification to interfere with the order dated 22.04.2025 inasmuch as the said order is very speaking and in such order reference has been given in respect of disposal of the said aforementioned Title Suit, Title Appeal as well as Second Appeal.

7.

Mr. Dwivedi, learned Advocate appearing for the A and N Administration while supporting the contention of

Mr. Prasanth draws attention of this Court to Regulation 28 of The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. It is submitted on behalf of the A and N Administration that under the said Regulation 28 the order passed by the Tehsildar is an appealable order. It is thus submitted by him that since the writ petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy the instant writ petition is not at all maintainable. 8.

This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court has given due consideration over the submissions of the learned Advocates for the contending parties. 9.

Coming to the factual aspects of this Court, this Court finds that while passing the order dated 22.04.2025 the respondent no. 3 has passed an order for removal and/or vacating the unauthorized occupation of the land bearing survey no. 34/1/14 situated at at Lamba Line village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil. No materials could be placed on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is actually in occupation of the said plot bearing survey no. 34/1/14. Though it has been contended by Mr. Jayapal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner is inoccupation of contiguous plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 and there is every apprehension of his client that he may be evicted by dint of the order under challenge, this Court finds no force in such submission inasmuch as in the order dated 22.04.2025 this Court finds no whisper

that the respondent no. 3 has passed any order for eviction of an unlawful occupant from the plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15. No other materials could be placed before this Court by the writ petitioner to substantiate as to how his interest is going to be prejudiced on account of passing of the order dated 22.04.2025 which is under challenge.

10.

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Prasanth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent that there are sufficient materials before this Court that the writ petitioner is actually not in occupation of plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 and such finding has been arrived at after conclusion of a trial by the jurisdictional Civil Judge and which has been confirmed in the Title Appeal as well as in the Second Appeal and further while disposing the said Second Appeal a Division Bench of this Court has come to a definite finding that in respect of plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15 one Mathew Joseph is in occupation of the said plot.

11.

In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court finds that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case to get any favourable order in absence of any material to substantiate that he is either inoccupation of the plot bearing survey no. 34/1/14 or in plot bearing survey no. 34/1/15.

12.

On careful consideration of the order dated 22.04.2025 it does not appear to this Court that the said order is anyway cryptic. On the contrary it appears to this

Court that the respondent no. 3 has passed an elaborate reasoned order. This Court thus finds no perversity in the order under challenge.

13.

This Court thus finds that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is thus dismissed. 14.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 15.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)