Nikhil Halder And ANR v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/356/2024 Nikhil Halder and Another Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ... for the petitioners Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents December 11, 2024 [SR] Item no. 8 1.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman District dated 19.03.2024 rejecting the prayer of the regularization of land on the ground that the case of the petitioners do not have any merit and does not fall within the ambit of regularization scheme.

2.

Learned advocate for the petitioners heavily relies upon the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioners on 03.02.1999 for approval of the competent authority. It has been submitted that as the Deputy Commissioner has already recommended their names for regularisation under pre-78 category, accordingly, there is no scope for rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for issuance of licence.

3.

It has been submitted that petitioners are in actual possession of the subject land for a continuous period of time and the case of the petitioners have been illegally and arbitrarily rejected.

4.

Learned advocate representing the Administration has filed opposition annexing the scheme of regularization. It appears therefrom that no relief for regularization can be made available to any applicant whose name does not appear in the list finally drawn up by the High Powered Committee constituted by the Administration.

5.

It has been pointed out that the petitioners own huge quantum of land at other places and, accordingly, they are not entitled for regularization under the scheme. 6.

It has been submitted that the High Powered Committed did not recommend the names of the petitioners for regularization and, accordingly, licence cannot be issued in their favour.

7.

The record of right, showing the lands recorded in favour of the petitioners at other places has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition.

8.

The noting in the revenue order sheets annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition for the dates 14.12.1987 and 16.07.1989 have been placed. It clearly mentions that the case of the petitioners has not been recommended by the Committee. 9.

It has been submitted that, despite having land elsewhere, the petitioners are illegally encroaching upon the government land.

10.

In response to the aforesaid submission, the learned advocate the submits that the Deputy Commissioner is the Head of the High Powered Committee and once the Deputy Commissioner recommends the case of the

petitioners for regularization, there is hardly any scope for the High Powered Committee to reject the claim of the petitioners. 11.

I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

12.

It is true that the Deputy Commissioner did recommend the names of the petitioners for regularization but the same are subject to the approval of the competent authority. The competent authority considered the prayer of the petitioners and did not find them eligible for regularization. 13.

The High Powered Committee rejected the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that no documentary proof could be submitted by the petitioners showing that the High Powered Committee ever recommended or approved the case of the regularization even though initially recommendation was made in favour of the petitioners. 14.

According to the scheme of regularization, the High Powered Committee is the competent authority to allow or disallow the prayer for regularization of an applicant. 15.

In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to obtain any recommendation from the High Powered Committee. The Court does not find any error in the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. 16.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 17.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J. )