Manju Mondal v. Andaman And Nicobar Administratoin And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/47/2024 Manju Mondal Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant MS. Babita Das ... for the respondents January 9, 2025 [SR] Item nos. 5 1.

Learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset submits that altogether seven (7) writ petitions were filed by the legal heirs of one Suren Mondal, claiming the similar relief in the batch of seven writ petitions claiming regularization of lands. All such writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petitions was assailed by filing intra court appeals. The present appeal is one out of seven appeals filed. Out of these seven appeals, MAT/42/2024 and four analogues cases were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on 18.11.2024, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that being covered by decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 18.11.2024 passed in MAT/42/2024 and analogues cases, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that in the proceeding in MAT/42/2024 the provision contained under the scheme of 17.08.1987, which are relevant to the petitioners claim was not considered. The scheme contemplated that even if a person was already in unauthorized possession of any other land, he could still claim regularization

of encroached lands as per clause 5 (ii) of the scheme which reads as follows :- "If the applicant was in authorized possession of any land in the A & N Islands on the date of his alleged encroachment he shall be entitled to relief under this scheme only to such a extent that the total of the area in his authorized possession and if the area for which an application for allotment under this scheme is made does not exceed 200 Sq.Meter (in urban area) for house site or 1 hectare (in non urban area) for agriculture as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant has encroached on several patches of land at different places not continuous to each other or at different villages he shall be entitled to relief under this scheme to the total of 200 sq.Meter or 350 sq.Meter or 1 hectare as the case may be."

3.

We find from the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge that this aspect of the matter has been considered in the writ proceedings.

4.

The claim of the seven legal heirs of Suren Mondal (grandchildren) including the present petitioner/appellant was identical and raising the same issues; and considering the same, the Hon'ble Single Judge as well as the Division Bench has found the identical claim for regularization unsustainable. 5.

The Hon'ble Single Judge in the order impugned in the present proceedings has also specifically taken note of the provisions being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has proceeded to take into consideration the fact that there is no factual foundation in the writ petition to inspire any confidence with respect to the relief claimed under the provisions contained under clause 5(ii) of the Scheme of 1987. 6.

The relevant paragraph in this regard in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge reads as follows:- "There is another aspect of the matter. In order to be entitled the benefit under the Scheme certain parameters and preconditions are to be complied with. One of such precondition is extent of land holding. The petition is silent

on extent of their land holding, rather it is averred that they are landless people. The is glaringly wrong" 7.

In absence of any such details, all identical claims have been finally dismissed by the Coordinate Bench in the order passed on 18.11.2024 in MAT/42/2024 and analogues case in the following terms:

"... ...

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."

8.

The self same claim of the petitioner is thus disposed off in terms of the order dated 18.11.2024 passed on the claim of the other legal heirs claiming through Suren Mondal in MAT/42/2024.

9.

The Appeal is dismissed.

( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Supratim Bhattacharya, J. )