Subhash Chandra Das v. The Lt Governor, Andaman And Nicobar Island,Rajniwas,Port Blair, And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WPA/433/2023 Shri Subhash Chandra Das ... Petitioner Vs.
The Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Rajniwas, Port Blair and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Kishore Karmakar ...for the Petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the Administration July 19, 2023 [M.A.Mobin] Item No.1 The present Writ application has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the Tehsildar, Mayabunder to dispose of the reference case No.238/JM/16 and old revenue Case No.492/PM/11.
The petitioner claims to be a legal heir of Late Madhusudan Das who according to the petitioner was rehabilitated at Tugapur village under Mayabunder Tehsil, by way of allotment of land bearing Dumey No.91, 92, 99 as per particulars detailed in Paragraph no.3 of the writ application (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The petitioner's father having expired on 4th of July, 2005, the aforesaid property having vested on the legal heirs of late Madhusudan Das the petitioner along with other cosharers had submitted an application on 29th June, 2016 before the Tehsildar, Mayabunder for mutating the aforesaid property.
Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that on the basis of the said application a revenue reference case No.RC/238/TM/16 was initiated. It is submitted that although a revenue case was initiated the same has still till date not been disposed of and is pending. He says that unless a specific direction is issued on the Tehsildar, Mayabunder to hear out and dispose of the aforesaid revenue case, it is more unlikely than not the same shall be kept pending and the petitioner shall continue to suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. From the records it would appear that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 28th April, 2023 was, inter alia, pleased to direct the respondents to submit a status report regarding the mutation application filed by the petitioner.
Despite such direction no such report appears to have been filed. Today Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate representing the Administration submits that since, the petitioner did not take any steps in connection with the summons to appear, the petitioner's case could not be proceeded with. Mr. Kumar has placed before this Court copy of form J as also the summons to appear in Form K., copies whereof are taken on record.
In reply Mr. Karmakar, submits that the petitioner had in compliance of the aforesaid summons duly appeared before the respondent no.4. In any event he submits that the petitioner shall duly appear before the respondent no.4 if he is required to appear again.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the documents already on record, inter alia, including the revenue order sheet it would appear that a mutation case has already been initiated. I also find that the notice of mutation to interested persons has also been issued in Form-J by the respondent no.4.
The aforesaid proceeding, however, is pending since the year 2016. I am of the view that without going into any controversy it would be prudent to direct the respondent no.4 to hear out and dispose of the mutation case being reference Case No.238/JN-16 and/or any other old revenue case that may be pending in relation to the aforesaid property, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for the allegations made in the writ application are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the aforesaid direction the writ application stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)