Shri.M.Ganeshan v. The Lt.Governor And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/46/2025 Shri M. Ganeshan Vs.
The Lt. Governor and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the appellant Mr. V. D. Siva Balan ... for the respondents February 06, 2026 [SR] Item No.5 This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 05, 2025, whereby a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, being WPA/240/2022. The writ petition had been filed by the appellant challenging an order dated April 26/27, 2022, passed by the Secretary (Revenue), A & N Administration in first Revenue Appeal No.01/2020/1538.
The crux of the appellant's case is that his father had come to these islands way back in 1930s/40s and encroached government land in 1950s. He built a house thereon and continued to live there till he passed away in the year 1994. The appellant says that, as the legal heir, he is entitled to be allotted the said plot of land measuring about 2018 sq.mtrs. There had been several rounds of litigation concerning this matter. Ultimately, on a writ petition of the appellant being WP/96/2014, a learned Judge of this Court, by an order dated January 08, 2020, directed the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue) to pass an order with reasons taking into account
certain documents mentioned in that order, after hearing the writ petitioner and other interested parties. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Secretary (Revenue) passed the order which was challenged in the present round of litigation before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge recounted the facts of the case in great detail. Finally, the learned Judge opined that the order of the Secretary (Revenue) is a well reasoned order, which warrants no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner.
We heard Mr.Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner at some length. Initially, we were not willing to interfere with the order.
However, Mr. Jayapal pointed out from the order of the Secretary (Revenue) that a report of the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) was relied upon by the Secretary (Revenue) in negating the appellant's claim, without sharing such report with the appellant. The appellant has no idea what there is in the report. This amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice.
We enquired from Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate representing the Administration as to whether or not the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement), which was one of the bases for negating the appellant's claim, was supplied to the appellant. Learned advocate, in his usual fairness, says that as per his instructions, it was not so. However, learned advocate
says that this is first time the appellant is raising this issue. Even in the written argument filed by him before the Secretary (Revenue), the appellant did not agitate this point. It is elementary that an administrative authority cannot take a decision against a person by relying on a document, without furnishing a copy of the document to that person. The person, who is to be affected by the decision, must know on what basis the decision has been taken. This is a cardinal rule of the principles of natural justice.
It may be that the appellant is raising this point for the first time before us. However, the same does not detract from the fact that the appellant was not supplied a copy of the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement), although the decision of the Secretary (Revenue) negating the appellant's claim was based also on that report. It is well known that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void or at least voidable at the instance of the person affected by the order.
Hence, without touching the merits of the case, purely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, we set aside order under appeal and also the order of the Secretary (Revenue) which was challenged before the learned Single Judge and remand the matter to the Secretary (Revenue) for passing a fresh order after supplying all documents that he proposes to rely upon, to the appellant herein and after hearing the appellant and other concerned parties.
This exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order by the appellant to the Secretary (Revenue), A & N Administration.
We clarify that we have not considered the merits of the appellant's claim. The Secretary (Revenue) will be at liberty to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, observing the principles of natural justice and without being influenced by any observation in this order. We also clarify that we are not binding the hands of the Secretary (Revenue) to pass the fresh order in any particular manner.
Needless to say that the fresh decision shall be taken in light of all the orders passed by this Court, from time to time. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)