Kamil Beck v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/702/2023 Kamil Beck Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 March 13, 2025 [AKB] Item No.11 1.

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to take effective steps to regularize the Government Revenue Land in survey no. 119/P at Mamiyo village under Ferrargunj Tehsil, District South Andaman as an alternative in lieu of licensed land in favour of the petitioner.

2.

According to the petitioner, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration had issued a licence in his favour on 29.08.2002 permitting him to occupy agricultural land in survey No. 41/2, 45/2, 46/2 and 47/2 at Indira Nagar under Ferrargunj Tehsil for the purpose of cultivation of agricultural crops. Although, the petitioner had taken possession of such land

however, according to the petitioner such land was unsuitable for agriculture as it was found to be saline. 3.

By drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 16.10.2006 Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that in response to the petitioner's complaint an inquiry was conducted and a notice in that connection was served on the petitioner.

4.

Subsequently, a fresh licence was issued on 28.10.2006 permitting petitioner to occupy agricultural land in survey plot No. 52/2 and 53/2 situated at Indira Nagar, Manglutan village under Ferrargunj Tehsil, District South Andaman. According to the petitioner the said land at Indira Nagar, Manglutan village was at a distance of 25 meters from the previous allotted land and had same characteristics.

According to petitioner, after the Tsunami, the sea water had remained stagnated in the licenced land bearing survey no. 52/2 and 53/2 and as such, the petitioner could not utilize the said land for cultivation, the same is lying idle.

5.

It is in the circumstances as aforesaid that the petitioner seeks regularization of the land under his occupation being Government Revenue Land in survey no. 119/P at village Mamiyo under Ferrargunj Tehsil, District South Andaman, which according to him is

under his occupation since 28.01.1978 and he has been residing there by constructing a residential house thereat. In support to his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj dated 27.12.1999, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. Records would reveal that when the petitioner had previously moved this Court whereupon by an order dated 9th July, 2013 a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP/671/2012, taking note of the stand taken by the respondents had permitted the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the authorities for grant of licence to occupy alternative agricultural land. Although, pursuant to the aforesaid the petitioner had made an application, by order dated 27.04.

2015 the petitioner's application was disposed of without any favourable orders, inter alia, on the consideration that as per the report given by the Director of Agriculture dated 16.02.2015, the soil samples taken from the land originally allotted to the petitioner reveal that the soil is acidic to neutral PH and no harmful salt concentration was found which may harm the crop growth.

6.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner had moved this Court. By an order dated 29th June, 2015 a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP/217/2015 by noting that the petitioner had not been provided with the copy of the report of the Director of Agriculture, on the

basis whereof, the decision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner which found the present allotment to be suitable for agriculture, had set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner with a further direction that copies of any documents relied on by the Deputy Commissioner should be made available to the petitioner.

7.

By an order dated 31.03.2016 the Deputy Commissioner had once again by placing reliance on the report of the Director of Agriculture dated 16.02.2015 had concluded that no harmful salt concentration was found in the land which may harm the crop growth. 8.

According to the petitioner the aforesaid order was also passed without making available the copy of the report obtained from the Director of Agriculture dated 16.02.2015. In such circumstances the petitioner was compelled to once again approach this Court whereupon by an order dated 29.08.2017 a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP/268/2016 and WP/289/2016 had while directing the respondent authorities to consider case of petitioner for regularization in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing, protected the interest of the petitioner by providing that till such time the application of the petitioner for regularization is considered and disposed

of by the authorities, the possession of the petitioner over the subject properties shall not be disturbed. 9.

According to Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned advocate representing the petitioner, the respondents are yet to take a decision in the matter.

10.

Heard Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate representing the Forest Department and Mr. V.D. Sivabalan for the Administration. In response to a query from this Court Mr.V.D. Sivabalan would submit that no decision has yet been taken pursuant to and in terms of the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

11.

Having considered the materials on record and having regard to the above I am of the view that since, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, such direction must be complied with. Having regard thereto, I direct Deputy commissioner, respondent no.2 herein, to consider the petitioner's case for regularization in accordance with law by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

12.

It is made clear that till such time the petitioner's case for regularization is considered and disposed of, the

possession of the petitioner over the subject plot shall not be disturbed by the respondents.

13.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.

14.

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

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)