Anita Mondal v. Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/42/2024 Amal Mondal Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others With MAT/43/2024 Anita Mondal Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others With MAT/44/2024 Anamika Mondal Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others With MAT/45/2024 Abhimaan Mondal Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others With MAT/46/2024 Parimal Mondal Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellants Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents November 18, 2024 [SR] Item nos. 4 to 8 1.
The challenge in the instant appeal is to an order dated 5th August, 2024 passed by the Single Bench of this Court.
2.
The brief facts relevant to the case are that the petitioners claim to be the legal heirs i.e grandchildren of one Late Suren Mondal.
3.
He sought to encroach and occupy 1.33 hectares under survey No.156/2 way back in the year 1977. Late Suren Mondal and 16 others made an application for regularisation of land occupied by them under the Scheme of the year 1987. The Tehsildar Rangat, considered the case of Suren Mondal along with 16 other persons.
4.
The Tehsildar, Mayabunder found that one Narayan Mondal father of the Suren Mondal was already allotted 4.05 hectares of land under Survey Nos.139/1, 140 and 332/4. Hence while the case of the 16 persons was considered by the Tehsildar, Rangat for regularisation under the Scheme of 17th August, 1987, the case of Suren Mondal was refused.
5.
Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner appellant would however argue that the formal order of rejection of the claim of Suren Mondal was never formally passed by the Tehsildar. The fact, however, remains that Suren Mondal never perused the matter for thirty years after the refusal by the Tehsildar. The matter at the instance of the petitioners, was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner under orders passed by a Coordinate Bench in a writ petition filed before this Court. 6.
The Deputy Commissioner found exactly what is stated hereinabove that Suren Mondal could not have claimed regularisation of 1.33 hectares of land under Survey No.156/2 since he was already in allotted occupation of 4.05 hectares on land under Suvey No.139/1, 140 and 332/4 as legal heir of his
father Late Narayan Mondal as per the field report of the Tehsildar dated 15.07.2023.
7.
The Single Bench, after duly considering all facts, has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to regularize the occupation of the land by the petitioners who were admittedly co-tenants.
8.
This Court is of the view that the principal reason for rejection of the writ petitioner's case for regularization of 1.33 hectares was that they are in occupation of 4.05 hectares of land, under 139/1, 140, and 332/4.
9.
A distribution of land under beneficial scheme ought to be fair and a person already in occupation of 4.05 hectares of land, cannot claim regularization of extra 1.33 hectares of land. 10.
In any event, the claim for regularisation of 1.33 hectares must be deemed to have been abandoned by Suren Mondal 30 years ago.
11.
The petitioners are otherwise barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel of their predecessor-in-interest through whom they claim title.
12.
The impugned order is fully justified and therefore calls for no interference.
13.
MAT/42/2024, MAT/43/2024, MAT/44/2024, MAT/45/2024 and MAT/46/2024 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J. )