Shri. Sakthivel v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/481/2025 Shri Sakthivel Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Lokesh Chezian ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondent no.4 November 03, 2025 [SR] Item No. 14 Through several rounds of litigation, the petitioner has sought for declaration that survey no.34/1/15 measuring an area of 200 sq.mtrs situated at Lambaline Village, belongs to him. The petitioner contends that, by a gazette notification, a second appellate authority had been notified. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the other authorities. The petitioner preferred a second appeal. The appeal should be disposed of and necessary direction should be passed by this court. It is submitted that, when the High Court had rejected the challenge to the decision of the Tehsildar, the second appellate authority had not been notified, and as such, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to prefer the second appeal.

Upon publication of notification, designating the second appellate authority, the right of the petitioner to prefer the second appeal accrued and, as such, this writ petition should be allowed by directing the second appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 submits that the challenge of the petitioner to the order passed by the Tehsildar dated April, 22, 2025, was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench by an order dated April 29, 2025 in WPA/226/2025. The Tehsildar had passed an order asking the petitioner to vacate the land bearing survey No.34/1/14. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that, the petitioner was in occupation of survey no.34/1/15, which was contiguous to plot no.34/1/14, he was wrongly being evicted from his rightful possession, was not accepted by the Bench. The Bench was of the specific view that the Tehsildar had only directed eviction of the unlawful occupant from survey plot no. 34/1/14 and not 34/1/15.

The learned single Judge also recorded that a civil suit had been filed, which was contested by the parties upto the second appeal and the specific findings in the suit was that one Mathew Joseph was in occupation of survey no.34/1/15 and not the petitioner. The Single Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had been in occupation of either survey plot no.34/1/14 or survey plot number 34/1/15. The order of the Tehsildar was upheld. An appeal was preferred and the appellate court observed that Mathew Joseph was occupying 34/1/15.

The Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that the order passed by the Tehsildar for removal and vacation of the

unauthorized occupation of survey plot no.34/1/14 situated at Lambaline was an elaborate order. No material was put forward by the petitioner, inter alia, showing that the petitioner was not actually encroaching plot number 34/1/14.

The petitioner did not claim any title and interest in respect of plot no.34/1/14 and as such the order of the Tehsildar could not be faulted on any ground. The Tehsildar had directed eviction from survey plotno.34/1/14, inter alia, finding that the respondent no.4 was entitled to occupy the same.

The order was appealed from. The Division Bench further directed the implementation of the order of the Tehsildar dated April 22, 2025, meaning thereby, the Division Bench directed that the eviction process should be completed by the Tehsildar. At this stage, the notification designating the appellate authority on August 11, 2025, cannot give a further right to the writ petitioner for re-consideration of his case that, he was in occupation of survey plot number 34/1/15 and was being forcefully removed therefrom instead of from survey plot no.34/1/14.

The matter had been finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court and this Court is bound by the said decision. The issue had attained finality.

Further, I find that the Division Bench had already directed eviction be carried out by the appropriate authority and this writ petition is a desparate attempt on the part of the

petitioner to obstruct the due process of law and invalidate the order of the Division Bench.

Accordingly, the WPA/481/2025 is dismissed.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )