Smti. Sarala Baidya v. The Tehsildar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/256/2025 Smti. Sarala Baidya Vs The Tehsildar and Another Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent No.1 Mr. Ratin Basu ... for the respondent No.2 November 10, 2025 [AKB] Item No. 9 The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction to the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram to execute the order dated 22.04.2025 and 01.05.2025 passed by the Tehsildar himself in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted private respondent No.2 to be instituting litigations to protract and prevent the respondent Tehsildar from executing the order of eviction.

A list of dates has been placed by the learned advocate representing the petitioner in compliance with the order dated November 07, 2025 passed by this Court.

In WPA/450/2016 this Hon'ble Court vide a judgement dated 19.04.2017, inter alia, observed as follows: "The first appeal and thereafter the second appeal as well as the review application, all filed by Smt. Jayanthi wife of Shaktivel against the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, were all dismissed. So, there is no legal bar to implement the order of the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar is not taking any effective step for the implementation of his own order, as alleged. Hence, the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to implement his order dated 9th May, 2014 passed in RC No.728/TPB/2014 within a month from the date of receipt of the

copy of this order by him. It may be further noted that this direction is a mandatory direction to be complied within the time frame mentioned above."

The respondent No.2 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Division Bench being MA No. 019 of 2017 with CAN No. 088 of 2017. Vide an order dated 30.08.2017 the Division Bench inter alia observed as follows:- "The appellant have submitted that order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge was an ex parte order as all the modes of service has not been adopted as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting service on the other parties. We have gone through the orders so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, but as the appellant has been deprived of his opportunity of hearing, we hereby modifies the orders of the Hon'ble Single to the extent that the Tehsildar is directed to implement the orders passed by him in RC No.

728//TPB/2014, within a period of one month from date the certified copy of this judgement/order is furnished to him after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned." With regard to the self same property the private respondent No.2 preferred Other Suit No. 18 of 2021 before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division I. Vide order dated 27.02.2024. The Civil Judge Junior Division I, inter alia, observed as follows:- "Finally the certified copy of survey report dated 03.12.2019 by the Surveyor Shri Jayant Halder (Page 49, 50 of Exhibit A) clearly depicts that survey No. 34/1/15 belonged to the plaintiff namely Shri Sakthivel is under occupation of Shri Mathew Joseph and the land bearing survey No. 34/1/14 belonged to Smti.

Sarala Baidya was under occupation of the present plaintiff (namely Sakthivel by way of constructing a house. However, in the present case the plaintiff Shri Sakthivel alleged that the defendant had threatened to evict him from the suit land bearing survey No. 34/1/15. The allegation of the plaintiff in the present case is in clear contradiction to the survey report and also in contrary to the statement of Shri Sakthivel in the revenue case against Shri Alex Mathew (Page 36 to 38 of Exbt. A). Rather, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff had encroached the land of the defendant, for which the erstwhile owner had to take legal recourse for removal of illegal encroachment by the present plaintiff through his wife Smti. Jayanti.

Accordingly, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the defendant, being an aged widow lady, had threatened the plaintiff to illegally evict from the suit land.

The issue No. 5 is related to entitlement of the plaintiff to get the decree as prayed for.

Since, the plaintiff failed to prove that he had a cause of action to institute the suit against the defendant, he is not entitled to get any decree.

As a result, the issue Nos. 4 & 5 as well as the suit is decided against the plaintiff.

Hence, it is, ORDERED that the instant suit is dismissed on contest without any cost."

Against such judgement and order dated 27.02.2024 the private respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge being Title Appeal No. 05 of 2024 which was disposed of through an order dated 24.02.2025, whereby the learned District Judge observed as follows:- "On perusal of entire record and hearing submission of Ld. Lawyers of both parties, it is very much clear that survey no.34/1/15 belongs to plaintiff and survey no.34/1/14 belongs to defendant. I further find that this case is relating to survey no.34/1/15. I further find from the report of Tehsildar that the said survey number i.e. 34/1/15 is under occupation of one Mathew Joseph. Defendant also stated in his written statement the same thing.

The Hon'ble High Court when passed the order on the basis of report of Assistant Commissioner also observed that survey no.34/1/15 belongs to Shri Shaktivel is under occupation of Shri Mathew Joseph. If that be so, then Mathew Joseph should have been made party in the suit before the Ld. Trial Court instead of this defendant as because he is not at all connected with survey no.34/1/15 and he is only concerned about survey no.34/1/14 and this fact is all along confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in their orders. If that be so, then decree for permanent injunction is not sustainable against the defendant/respondent of this case. Hence, I do not find any impediment in the order passed by Ld.

Trial Court as because he has completely discussed all these issues as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Court in which it has been clearly observed that survey no.34/1/15 belongs to plaintiff, which is under occupation of one Mathew Joseph and survey no.34/1/14 belongs to defendant. Hence, Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and I do not find any illegality to interfere with the said finding of Ld. Trial Court.

C.F. Paid is sufficient Hence, it is, Ordered That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

The Judgment and decree dated 27.02.2024 passed in Other Suit No. 18 of 2021 by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Port Blair is hereby affirmed.

Thus this appeal stands disposed of."

Against the aforesaid judgement and order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned District Judge in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2024 a second appeal was preferred by the private respondent No.2 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Sat No. 02 of 2025. Vide order dated 18.03.2025 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:- "2. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on examination of the documents and evidences have come to a definite finding that the survey No.34/1/15 is under occupation of one Mathew Joseph. The said finding is based on material including affirmation of possession of Mathew Joseph in earlier proceeding between the parties.

3. On such consideration, we do not find any reason to admit the second appeal.

4. The second appeal along with CAN/1/2025 stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs." In compliance with the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram issued the eviction order dated 22.04.2025 which, inter alia stated as follows:- "AND WHEREAS, being aggrieved by the SDO's order dated 30.05.2024, Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Lambaline, approached the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by filing Other Suit No. 18 of 2021, which was dismissed on 27.02.2024. A subsequent appeal filed before the Ld. District Judge T.A .No.05 was also dismissed on 24.02.2025.

AND WHEREAS, a further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court in SAT No. 02 of 2025 (Shaktivel vs. Smti. Sarla Baidya & Anr.) was dismissed on 18.03.2025.

AND WHEREAS, under Section 38 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, all land in the Union Territory vests in the Government, and no person shall be deemed to have acquired any right therein by occupation, prescription, conveyance, or otherwise, except by conveyance executed by or under authority of the Government AND WHEREAS, your continued occupation of the said land unauthorized, illegal, and untenable, and you are liable to be evicted und Section 161 of the said Regulation. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 161 of the A & N Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, I hereby direct Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Lambaline, to vacate the unauthorized occupation of land bearing Survey No. 34/1/40, situated at Lamba Line Village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, on or before 30th April, 2025. Failing which, the same shall be evicted by the Revenue Authority on or after 1st May, 2025, without further notice. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 22 day of April, 2025."

The private respondents further challenged the aforesaid order of the Tehsildar dated 22.04.2025 vide WPA No. 226 of 2025 before the Single Judge of this court and vide order dated 29.04.2025 the same was dismissed with the following observation:

"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." Subsequently in compliance with the order dated 29.04.2025 a further eviction order was passed by the Tehsildar on 01.05.2025 which, inter alia, stated as follows:- "ORDER (U/s 161 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, LR & LRR 1966) WHEREAS, an order was passed by the undersigned in R.C. No. 10/178/2021 on 11.07.2023 in the matter of illegal occupation of land bearing Sy.No. 34/1/14 area 200 Sq. Mtrs, situated at Lamba Line Village, giving opinion to the parties that Section 161 of the A & N Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

AND WHEREAS, being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.07.2023, the appellant Smti. Sarla Buidya, W/o Krishna Kanta Baidya, R/o Shadipur, led an appeal vide FRA No.

10(A)/2023/SDO before the Sub-Divisional Officer, S/Andaman AND WHEREAS, the Sub-Divisional Officer, in PRA No. 10(A)/2023/SDO, after hearing the matter, disposed of the appeal and reversed the order dated 11.07.2023 on 30.05.2024, and directed Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbaiah, to remove the illegal occupation from the land belonging to Smti. Sarla Baidya within one week from the date of issue of the order, i.e., by 06.06.2024 AND WHEREAS, being aggrieved by the SDO's order dated 30.05.2024, Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Lambaline, approached the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by filing Other Suit No. 18 of 2021, which was dismissed on 27.02.2024. A subsequent appeal filed before the Ld. District Judge TA No. 05 was also dismissed on 24.02.2025.

AND WHEREAS, the undersigned has passed another order in R.C. No. 514/TPB/2024 on 22.04.2025 in the above said matter and directed Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbalah, R/o Lambaline, to vacate the unauthorized occupation upon the land bearing Survey No. 34/1/14, situated at Lamba Line Village under Sin Vijaya

Puran Telisil, on or before 30/04/2025. But he did not adhere to the under and nul vacated the said land.

AND WHEREAS, being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.04.2025, Shri Shuktivel, S/o Subbah, R/o Lambaline, has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair against the above sard under of undersigned. But till date no any order has been received from the Hon'ble High Court.

AND WHEREAS, under Section 38 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, all land in the Union Territory vests in the Government, and no person shall be deemed to have acquired any right therein by occupation, prescription, conveyance, or otherwise, except by conveyance executed by or under authority of the Government. AND WHEREAS, your continued occupation of the said land is unauthorized, illegal, and untenable, and you are liable to be evicted under Section 161 of the said Regulation NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 161 of the A & N Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, I hereby direct Shri Shaktivel, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Lambaline, to vacate the unauthorized occupation of land bearing Survey No. 34/1/14, situated at Lamba Line Village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, on or before 08/05/2025. Failing which, the same shall be evicted by the Revenue Authority on or after 09th May, 2025, without further notice. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 01st day of May, 2025."

Challenging the order passed in WPA/226/2025 dated 29.04.2025 the private respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in MAT 31 of 2025 and vide order dated 01.08.2025 the MAT 31 of 2025 was dismissed with the following observation:

"17. Moreover, the writ petitioner litigated over his rights in respect of the land bearing survey No. 34/1/15. His rights in respect of such land stood crystalized up to the stage of second appeal. It came out from the aforesaid proceedings that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was occupied by some third person, Mathew Joseph, and the writ petitioner has chosen not to take any steps against such encroacher. The writ petitioner does not claim any right and title in respect of plot No. 34/1/14 and therefore he cannot claim any relief in respect of a property over which he has no right and title.

18. In the light of the aforegone discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. We affirm the same.

19. Accordingly, MAT/31/2025 with CAN/2/2025 are disposed of without any order as to costs.

20. The authorities will proceed to take steps for implementation of the order dated April 22, 2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram in respect of the land in question in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months form date."

Mr. Arul Prasanth, the learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted to have filed the instant writ petition on 10th June, 2025 and further urged that the respondent Tehsildar did not execute the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 31 of 2025 after a lapse of three months and accordingly prayed for an order directing respondent Tehsildar to comply the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench in MAT 31 of 2025.

Ms. Babita Das, the learned advocate representing the respondent Tehsildar submitted the series of litigations filed by the private respondent prevented the Tehsildar to continue with the execution process.

Mr. Ratin Basu, the learned advocate appeared before the Court to seek adjournment on the ground of his Senior learned advocate Mr. Lokesh Chezian who had appeared on November 07, 2025 and submitted to have been newly engaged to contest the instant writ petition and intended to file certain documents and the same was allowed to be file by 10.11.2025. The sequence of litigation focused on the same set of disputants concerning the same plot of land in question. There has been no deviation in view of the scheduled property as mentioned in the Other Suit No. 18 of 2021 claiming exercise of rights thereon.

The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted the property belonging to the private respondent had been encroached by a third party viz Mathew Joseph unrelated to the instant suit property belonging to the petitioner being

34/1/14 in the Tehsil Sri Vijaya Puram allotted in favour of the petitioner as a recorded tenant exclusively and the same to have been encroached by the private respondents.

Despite repeated direction by the Single Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court the Tehsildar had issued orders of eviction but did not endeavor to dispossess the private respondent at the instance of ongoing litigations filed by the private respondent from time to time without any specific order of stay on such execution order passed by this Court either by Single Judge or by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The conduct of the private respondent in creating hindrance and predicament in the process of executing the orders passed by this Court by filing multiple litigations encumbers the time consumed in the process along with docket explosion.

The learned Junior Advocate of the Advocate on record representing the private respondent No. 2 seeks for further time on the ground of the learned advocate on record and the same is not allowed as the relief granted to the petitioner is being frustrated for deliberate delay and procrastination on the part of the private respondent. No further time shall be granted for prolonging the execution of the order of eviction at the pretext of filing documents. On the last occasion time was granted to file documents as claimed by the learned advocate representing the private respondent No.2. Today any further time has been refused to be granted considering the conduct of the private respondent No.2 to objectively delay the process. Relief has been sought for setting the Tehsildar to act in compliance with

the order of this Court in MAT/31/2025 and the same is allowed.

None of the benches of this Hon'ble Court either the Single Bench or the Division Bench had granted an order of stay. Mere filing of the appeal before the Division Bench aggrieved by the order of Single Bench in absence of order of stay the respondent Tehsildar could not have been prevented from executing the order of eviction.

The Tehsildar is to comply with the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in MAT/31/2025 within fourteen days from the date of passing of this order.

No order as to costs.

WPA/256/2025 is disposed of.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)