P.Zubaida And ORS v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/393/2024 P.Zubaida and others Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and another Ms. G.Mini ... for the petitioners Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents November 18, 2024 [AKB] Item No.3

1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 i.e. Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, Port Blair to mutate their names in respect of land bearing survey No. 421 comprising an area of 699 Sq.mtrs. at Buniyadabad village under Port Blair, South Andaman District with a further prayer for quashing of the order dated 28.03.2024 as passed by the respondent No.2 authority, whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners' application for mutation has not been considered favourably.

2. In course of her submission Ms. Mini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners draws attention of this Court to page No. 17 of the writ petition being a photo copy of the survey record in respect of survey no. 421 which stood recorded in the name of one P.A. Kals @ P.A. Kadar, since deceased being the predecessor in interest of the present writ petitioners.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the death of the said recorded tenant P.A. Kals @ P.A. Kadar the present writ petitioners being his legal heirs applied for mutation in respect of the survey No. 421, however, that was not considered favourably by respondent no.2 authority vide order dated 28.03.2024 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. It is submitted further that no plausible explanation has been given by the respondent No. 2 authority for rejecting the prayer for mutation of the writ petitioners.

5. Ms. Mini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners thus prays for allowing the instant writ petition with a further prayer for passing an order directing the respondent No. 2 to carry out mutation in the names of the writ petitioners in respect of the plot in question.

6. Per contra, Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents draws attention of this Court to paragraph no.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondents. It is submitted that during the field survey it has been noticed that the said P.A. Kals @ P.A. Kadar, since deceased is the recorded tenant in respect of old survey No. 6 corresponding to new survey No. 421 comprising around 5000 sq. feet only.

7. Ms. Das draws attention of this Court to Annexure R1 at page 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition.

8. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing learned counsels for the parties at length this Court finds that it is admitted position that the name of the father of the present writ petitioners was recorded as tenant in respect of old plot bearing survey No. 6 corresponding to new survey no. 421 for an area measuring about 5000 Sq. feet and so far as the remaining 234 sq. mtrs. area is concerned the same is however not recorded in the name of the said P.A.Kals @ P.A.Kadar, since deceased.

9. Such being the position there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent No.2 in not allowing the application for mutation as filed by the writ petitioners in respect of survey no. 6 corresponding to new survey no. 421 comprising an area of 5000 sq. feet.

10. In view of such and while deposing of the instant writ petition this Court thus directs the respondent No. 2 authority to mutate the name of the writ petitioners in respect of old plot bearing survey No. 6 corresponding of new survey no. 421 comprising an area of 5000 sq. feet only at Buniyadabad village under Port Blair, South Andaman District positively within thirty days from today.

11. Before parting with, it is made clear that this Court while disposing the instant writ petition has made no observation in respect of the alleged excess area of 234 sq.mtrs. in survey No. 421 and in view of such the writ petitioners are at liberty to establish their right, title and interest in

respect of the said alleged excess area of 234 sq. mtrs in appropriate forum, if so advised.

12. With the aforementioned observation the instant writ petition is disposed of.

13. The respondent no. 2 is directed to act on the server copy of this order.

14. Learned advocate for the respondents is hereby requested to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 2 forthwith for its immediate compliance.

15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)