Shri. Ganga Din v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

S/L 1 In the High Court at Calcutta 21.07.2025 Circuit Bench at Port Blair Court. No. 19 Suvayan WPA 324 of 2025 Shri Ganga Din Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Ors.

Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ...for the petitioner.

Ms. Babita Das ...for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

1.

By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of the appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically; against the respondent no. 3 for quashing and/or cancelling and/or resending its order dated 01.07.2025.

2.

At the time of hearing, Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing in virtual mode on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 71 to 74 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the earlier order dated 27.04.2023 as passed by the respondent no. 3/authority which was subject matter of challenge in an earlier round of litigation as filed by the writ petitioner.

3.

Drawing attention to page nos. 75 to 84 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the judgment dated 15.04.2024 as passed in WPA 730 of 2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, it is submitted by Mr. Jayapal that in the said earlier round of litigation the said Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 directed the respondent no. 3 to consider some specific points as raised by the writ petitioner before

the respondent no. 3 while passing a reasoned order on the basis of the application as filed by the private respondent.

4.

For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition the relevant paragraph of the judgment dated 15.04.2024 is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim: "29. It appears that petitioner filed written objection raising three issues as follows:- 29.1. That the petitioner constructed house in the year 2008 after obtaining sanction plan in the year 2007 and accordingly the written complaint submitted by respondent No. 4 as barred under Section 161 of the Regulation 1966.

29.2. That the Surveyor did not follow yard stick as required to hold demarcation on the basis of ETS.

29.3. That there was a boundary dispute between the land occupied by the petitioner and that of the respondent No. 4 and the adjudication of the said boundary dispute is exclusive domain of Deputy Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration not within the jurisdiction of learned Tehsildar within the meaning of Section 96 of the Regulation 1966."

5.

At this juncture, Mr. Jayapal took me to the order under challenge in the instant writ petition as has been annexed at page nos. 85 and 86 of the instant writ petition. In course of his argument Mr. Jayapal raised the following points:

(i) While passing the order under challenge dated 01.07.2025 the respondent no. 3

placed his reliance upon two demarcation reports on the basis of inspections dated 30.08.2024 and 01.05.2025 without serving any copy/copies thereof causing violation of principle of natural justice.

(ii) In the order under challenge the points/issues as framed by the co-ordinate Bench vide its judgment dated 15.04.2024 have not been disposed of.

(iii) The respondent no. 3 has failed to visualize that the writ petitioner has obtained sanction plan for erection of his building.

(iv) The respondent no. 3 has also failed visualize that the complaint made against the writ petitioner was barred since two years have lapsed from the date of making complaint by the private respondent.

6.

Ms. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the A and N Administration, however, contended that the instant writ petition is not maintainable since the order impugned is appealable under Regulation 28 (a) of A and N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reform Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulation' in short) wherein the S.D.O. is the appropriate authority. 7.

It is argued by Ms. Das that from the order under challenge it would reveal that the issues as framed by the co-ordinate Bench have been duly dealt with and disposed of by the respondent no. 3. Ms. Das further contended

that within two years from the receipt of the private complaint the appropriate proceeding was started under Section 161 said Regulation.

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.

In order to decide as to whether the respondent no. 3 while passing the order under order challenge dated 01.07.2025 has at all complied with the judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 as passed in WPA 730 of 2023 I propose to make a comparative study of the paragraph no. 29 of the said judgment dated 15.04.2024 vis-à-vis the findings of the respondent no. 3 in the impugned order. 10.

On perusal of the second paragraph of internal page no. 2 of the order under challenge it reveals that the respondent no. 3/authority has duly decided the point of limitation as has been framed by the co-ordinate Bench vide its judgment dated 15.04.2024.

11.

So far the point no. 2 as to whether the Surveyor had followed the yard stick for holding demarcation on the basis of ETS, it appears to this Court that in the order under challenge the said point/points have also been duly dealt with by the respondent no. 3 by making elaborate discussion on such subject in the third paragraph of page no. 1 of the impugned order.

12.

So far as the third point/issue as framed by the coordinate Bench is concerned it further appears to this

Court that the same has also been dealt with by the respondent no. 3 in an appropriate manner in the last but one paragraph of the first page of the order under challenge.

13.

In view of such, this Court comes to a categorical finding that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not complied with by the respondent no. 3.

14.

Coming back to the merit of the instant writ petition, it appears to this Court that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner acquired interest over survey no. 19/3 by executing a deed of conveyance dated 12.08.2025. A copy of the said deed of conveyance is also annexed to the instant writ petition. 15.

Keeping in mind such factual scenario if I again look to the order under challenge it reveals that while passing the order under challenge dated 01.07.2025 the respondent no. 3/authority had come to a specific factual finding that the present writ petitioner has encroached 64.4 sq. mtr. in survey no. 19/5. It further reveals that from the order under challenge that on the basis of the demarcation report dated 30.08.2024 and 01.05.2025 the respondent no. 3/authority has also come to a finding to the writ petitioner has constructed a double storied RCC structure over survey no. 19/5.

16.

On being asked by this Court Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner could

not substantiate the right, title and interest of the writ petitioner over survey no. 19/5 except an entry in Record of Right.

17.

It is settled principle of law that at entry in a record of right does not confer any title.

18.

It thus appears to this Court that the order as has been passed by the respondent no. 3/authority is otherwise justified and no materials could be placed before this Court that the decision making process of the respondent no. 3/authority has been vitiated on account of consideration of some extraneous substance and/or for not considering the relevant available materials on record.

19.

The writ petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to why instead of availing an alternative efficacious remedy he has approached this writ court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in absence of any perversity in the order impugned.

20.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court thus finds no merit in the instant writ petition. 21.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA 324 of 2025 is dismissed.

22.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

23.

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

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)