Satyaban Paul v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/368/2024 Satyaban Paul Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others With WPA/367/2024 Dulal Paul Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors. Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents July 31, 2025 [SR] Item Nos.29 & 30 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, North Andaman Sub Division, Diglipur on 10th June, 2024 disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioners and turning down their prayer for continuing in unauthorized occupation of government revenue land.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioners claim to be in occupation of the government revenue land for more than 30 years and submitted a representation before the respondents requesting their continuation in the said land. The representation not being considered, the petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition seeking a direction upon the authority not to evict them without due process of law. By an order passed on February 5, 2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to respond to the representations
submitted by the petitioners and not to take any action against them in the form of eviction or any other penal measure till three weeks from the date the reasoned order was communicated to the petitioners. The third respondent in the writ petition was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before arriving at a reasoned decision. Pursuant to the said order, the Assistant Commissioner took up the representation for consideration and rejected the same.
Though the petitioners were heard by the authority in disposing of the representation, the authority relied upon a field enquiry report submitted by the Area Patwari in turning down the prayer of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the copy of the said report was not made over to the petitioners and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to contradict the same or explain their stand with regard to the report. It is not in dispute that copy of the report was not made over to the petitioners by the authority though the said report has been solely relied upon by them in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners.
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the issue is required to be revisited by the authority upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and making over copies of documents including the reports relied upon by them in disposing of the representation.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned dated 10th June, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, North Andaman Sub Division, Diglipur is quashed/set aside.
The third respondent is directed to revisit the issue upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also serving copies of documents proposed to be relied upon by him in arriving at a reasoned order. The entire exercise should be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order.
No steps shall be taken against the petitioners for their eviction from the property in question till two weeks from the date of the reasoned order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Suvra Ghosh, J.)