Shri. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/672/2023 Shri. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K.M.B Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S Kumar ... for the respondents October 12, 2023 [SR] Item No.3 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a recorded tenant of an occupancy land pertaining to survey plot Nos.88 and 89 measuring about 0.1000 hectares and 0.2600 hectares situated at Dhanikhari revenue village. In an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, being WPA/287/2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated February 22, 2023, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the authority and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative within ten days from the date of communication of the order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has not been complied with by the respondents till date, who are continuing with the construction work on the petitioner's land without acquiring the same by due process of law.

A report has been submitted on behalf of the respondents which demonstrates that the survey was conducted in respect of the plot in question and it was found that a portion of land was affected due to widening of the national highway.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a recorded tenant of the plot in question. There is no iota of document on record to suggest that the earlier order of this Court has been complied with by the respondents. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents candidly submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner is yet to be considered by the authority. Much has been spoken by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding demarcation of the plot in question. Such demarcation, as it appears, was not done in presence of the petitioner or his authorised representative. Therefore, such demarcation allegedly done behind the back of the petitioner can have no bearing upon the petitioner.

Since the representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondents is yet to be considered, the writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned authority, being the second respondent herein, to consider and dispose of the representation within four weeks from date of communication of this order upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner, in accordance with law. The decision taken by the authorities shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. Pending disposal of the representation, the respondent authorities are restrained from causing any encumbrance upon the plot in question including utilization of the same, excavating earth or raising construction.

The writ petition being WPA/672/2023 is accordingly disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Since affidavit has not been invited, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

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

( Suvra Ghosh, J.)