Sanjeet Roy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/315/2021 Shri Sanjeet Roy Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ...for the petitioner Mr.V.D. Sivabalan Mr.Arun S.Kumar ... for the respondents April 20, 2023 [Bithika] Item No.89 The petitioner has filed the instant Writ application challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in F.No. 131/LC/2019/5062 dated 12th November, 2021 wherein the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. On earlier occasion, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman passed an order vide order No. 826 dated 28th June, 2019 wherein the request of the petitioner was rejected and being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner had preferred the Writ application before this Court being WPA No. 306/2019. The said Writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9th January, 2020 wherein this Court has set aside the order dated 28th June, 2019 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to redetermine the case on the basis of the evidence before him

and further evidence which may be adduced by the parties after hearing of the necessary parties including those not impleaded in the Writ application within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. In compliance of the order, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order.

Mr. K.M.B Jayapal, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 28th June, 2019 is the replica of the earlier order dated 28th June, 2019 which was already been set aside by this Court. Mr. Jayapal submits that the petitioner has filed the written notes of argument before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, in the said written argument, the petitioner has relied upon certain documents but the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the said document while passing the impugned order. Mr. Jayapal further submits that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order relying upon the documents placed by Mr. Mohan Lall i.e. the written statement filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair in Civil Suit No.

40 of 2001 as well as the revenue records of the disputed properties. Mr.Jayapal submits that neither the written statement relied by Mr. Mohan Lall nor the certain records relied by the Deputy Commissioner was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Mr.

Commissioner has relied upon, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to deal with the said documents. He prays for setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2021.

Per contra, Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned Counsel representing the Administration submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is an appealable order and the writ application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Mr. Sivabalan further submits that the Deputy Commissioner had relied upon the order passed by the Civil Court and the registered sale deed which relates with the revenue records and as such it is not necessary to provide the said document to the petitioner. Mr. Sivabalan submits that the Deputy Commissioner had given an opportunity of hearing to the parties and the petitioner has also filed relevant document, thus it cannot be said that opportunity was given to the petitioner. Mr. Sivabalan prays for dismissal of the Writ application.

Considered the submission made by the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. In the written notes of argument, the petitioner has relied upon the documents which he had obtained under Right to Information Act wherein the petitioner claimed that the landed property was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has relied upon the written statement filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2001 as well as sale

deed and the revenue records. It is admitted that neither the written statement which was relied by Mr. Mohal Lall nor the revenue record and the sale deed which was relied by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order was served to the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity to deal with the documents which the Deputy Commissioner had relied upon while passing the impugned order.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12th November, 2021 is set aside and quashed. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties by supplying of the documents relied upon by the parties as well as the Deputy Commissioner while passing the order.

The Deputy Commissioner shall complete the proceeding within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

WPA 315 of 2021 is thus disposed of.

(Krishna Rao, J.)