Smti. Zaheeda Bibi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/48/2025 Smt Zaheeda Bibi Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents January 15, 2026 [SR] Item No.4 The appellant is plaintiff no.2 in a Partition Suit being Other Suit No.72 of 2015 ( Smt Rasheeda Bibi vs. Shamim Aktar and others). In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 26th April, 2024. By the said preliminary decree, the shares of the parties to the partition suit were declared. On the basis of the said preliminary decree, the appellant applied before the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, South Andaman District on 3rd March, 2025 for correction of the relevant land records. This application was rejected by an order dated 20th June, 2025.

Challenging the said order, a writ petition was filed being WPA/350/2025. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that mutation cannot be made on the basis of the preliminary decree. There has to be final adjudication of rights. Challenging such order dated 2nd September, 2025, the present appeal has been filed.

The law in respect of mutation of properties or recording the name in the record of rights can be summarized in the manner as follows:

(1) If the name of any party to a partition suit is not recorded in the record of rights, then, on the basis of a preliminary decree, if the same remains unchallenged, the concerned party can apply for recording his/her name in the record of rights of the main premises as one of the joint/co-owner of the property. The joint ownership does not give the concerned party exclusive right in respect of any particular portion of the main property in respect of which his/her name has been recorded as a joint/co-owner. It is no more res integra that the record of rights is not a title document. It only creates an obligation on the persons whose names are recorded in the record of rights to pay the land revenue and other statutory rates and taxes attached to the property jointly in accordance with their respective share in the main property.

(2) In order to have a property exclusively recorded in the name of a person, the learned Single Judge is correct while saying that the same can be done only after exclusive declaration of rights. In such a case, specific demarcated area of the land, pursuant to a final decree in Partition Suit out of the main premises is allotted to a person. On the basis of such allotment

he/she can apply for recording his /her name with record to the allotted portion as an exclusive owner thereof. In such a case, the person, whose name is mutated in the record of rights, will be treated to be an exclusive owner of the specific portion allotted to him and shall be liable to pay the land revenue and other statutory rates and taxes attached to the property for the specified portion.

(3) The difference between the aforesaid two situations is that in the first case, the name of the person is recorded as a joint owner without exclusive right in respect of any particular portion in the main premises. The recorded joint/co-owner is not a separate assessee and is liable to pay jointly the land revenue and other statutory rates and taxes as the recorded joint/coowner. On the basis of the final decree a person will have the right to get the allotted portion specifically recorded in his name as a separate assessee and will be liable to pay the land revenue and statutory rates and taxes for the specified portion out of the main premises.

In the instant case, the writ petitioner/appellant wanted her name to be recorded as the joint owner of the main premises and not in respect of a demarcated portion. This is permissible because her name should appear in the record of rights once she has been declared to have a share in the main

premises till the same is partitioned of metes and bounds and a specific share thereof is allotted to her.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the respondents have produced the record of rights. We find that the name of the writ petitioner/appellant is recorded as one of the joint/co-owners of the main premises. The writ petitioner/appellant was given a copy of the mutation certificate and does not dispute such recording. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any necessity to proceed with the appeal. In the light of the discussion herein above, the appeal is disposed of by recording that name of the writ petitioner/appellant has been recorded and/or appears as a joint/co-owner of the main premises, being the subject matter of the partition suit. The writ petition is also dismissed by modifying the order impugned to the extent as discussed herein above.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)