Abhilash Chandra Paul @ Abhilash Paul v. Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/52/2024 Abhilash Chandra Paul @ Abhilash Paul Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Prakash Minj ... for the appellant Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents October 4, 2024 [SR] Item no. 2 This appeal is directed against an order dated 2 July, 2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge, inter alia dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there was nothing on record to prove that the licence to occupy land in favour of the writ petitioner had been cancelled.

Briefly, the petitioner seeks consideration of a representation whereby the writ petitioner proposed to pay the land revenue in respect of the subject premises. It is alleged on behalf of the writ petitioner that despite making repeated attempts to make payment of the land revenue in respect of the subject premises, the respondent authorities have refused to accept any land revenue on the ground that licence issued in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled. As such, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the subject premises. On behalf of the respondent authorities, it is submitted that there is no illegality nor perversity in the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference at all. Any attempt to pay land revenue by the petitioner is without authority of law and for ulterior purposes.

In any event, the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner which the petitioner seeks consideration had been filed as far back as in 1978.

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to furnish any records pertaining to setting aside of the order for cancellation of allotment of land of the petitioner and this has weighed with the Learned Trial Court in passing the impugned order. There is no illegality nor perversity in the impugned order. The impugned order is reasoned. The representations filed by the petitioner were also dated as far back as 1977-1978. In any event, such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated upon in this proceeding.

Liberty is granted to the appellant to take such steps as may be advised, in accordance with law.

With the above directions, MAT/52/2024 stands dismissed. ( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )