Smti.Zaheeda Bibi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH *** WPA/350/2025 Smti. Zaheeda Bibi ... Petitioner Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Another ... Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal For the respondents :Ms. Babita Das Heard on : 02.09.2025 Judgment on : 02.09.2025 GAURANG KANTH, J.

1.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the communication dated 20th June, 2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner was advised to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum by furnishing the latest Record of Rights, land revenue receipts, and a proposal of map delineating the respective share of parties.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair passed a preliminary decree dated 26.04.2024 in Suit No. 72 of 2015. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application dated 03.03.2025, followed by an

online application dated 20th May, 2025, before respondent No.2 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 84 and 85 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, for mutation of the property. However, by communication dated 20.06.2025 the respondent No. 2 rejected the said request, directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

3.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the preliminary decree dated 26.04.2024 in Suit No. 72 of 2015, the shares of the parties already stand determined, and as there is no challenge to the said decree, the respondent authorities were duty bound to effect mutation in the name of the respective share holders. 4.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Babita Das contends that mutation cannot be carried out on the basis of preliminary decree, in as much as the same merely determines the shares of the parties but does not finally effectuate partition by metes and bounds. It is only upon the passing of the final decree, which conclusively determines the right and possession of the parties, the mutation can be effected. Hence, in the absence of a final decree, the application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected vide order dated 20.06.2025.

5.

This Court has heard the submission advanced by both the counsel for the parties and has perused the materials on record. 6.

The sole issue arising for consideration is whether mutation can be granted on the basis of a preliminary decree. It is well settled that a preliminary decree, by its very nature, merely declares the shares of the parties and leaves further proceedings, such as division by metes and bounds, delivery of possession and preparation of the final record, to be undertaken for passing of a final decree. Mutation in revenue records, being an administrative act to reflect actual title and possession, can only be carried out on the basis of a conclusive adjudication of rights. Since a preliminary decree is interlocutory in course of final decree proceedings, it cannot form the basis for mutation. In the light of the settled legal possession, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 2.

7.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (GAURANG KANTH, J.)