Shri.Akbar Ali And ORS v. The Tehsildar And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/484/2024 Shri Akbar Ali and others Vs The Tehsildar and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioners Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents December 3, 2024 [AKB] Item No.6

1. The petitioners prayed for setting aside of the order of eviction dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj, South Andaman District, in connection with Revenue Case No. 995/2023, initiated on the application dated 27.07.2023 and 08.08.2023 of one Manoj Gangully made to the Tehsildar for demarcation of his land measuring 0.7000 Hects. in survey no. 257 situated at Habdipur village under Ferrarguanj Tehsil.

During demarcation proceeding Tehsildar collected report from Patwari of Cricle No. (8) and served notices dated 01.12.2023 and 12.12.2023 to Mohammed Hamza, Smti. Kamla, Shri Manoj Gangully, Shri. Anil Sarkar, Smti. Aysha Bibi to appear on 06.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 with documents respectively.

2. Basing on demarcation report dated 31.10.2023, the eviction order was passed on 03.09.2024 whereby Manoj Gangully was directed to evict unauthorized occupation of 1960 sq. meter land of Anil Kumar in survey No. 258 by 10.09.2024. There was no direction on the petitioners to evict any land unauthorizedly occupied by them. Petitioners are seeking setting aide of the said eviction order.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are co-tenant of Mohammed Hamza in record of rights. A show cause notice was issued to Md. Hamza in this case.

As such, petitioners had reasonable apprehensions as to their rights may be affected adversely.

4. Learned advocate for the respondents submits that this application is not maintainable as the writ petitioners are neither party to the demarcation proceeding nor their interest were affected adversely. Mere on the ground of apprehension no writ petition is liable to be entertained.

5. They also refer paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 where in it has been stated that:

"It is submitted that Eviction Order dated 03/09/2024 in TFG RC No. 995/2023 wherein directions were issued to Shri. Manoj Gangully & 02 Ors. to remove their un authorized occupation over the land of Survey No. 258 which belongs to one Shri. Anil Kumar. The writ petitioner is not at all adverse party in the said eviction orders."

6. It appears from the eviction order itself and the statement of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that interest of petitioners are not going to be affected adversely; thereby.

7. Therefore, I do not find any reason to set aside the eviction order dated 03.09.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 on the application of Manoj Gangully made for demarcation of his land, whereby he was directed to evict the land under his unauthorized occupation by 10.09.2024. This order was passed on the basis of demarcation report dated 31.10.2023. since no order for eviction any land was directed to the petitioners. Question of service of copy of eviction order upon them do not arise.

8. Apparently, I do not find any substance in this petition.

9. Accordingly the WPA/484/2024 is dismissed as become infructuous, however, there is no order as to cost. 10.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

11.

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

(Uday Kumar, J.)