Smti.C.Rani v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/532/2024 Smt C. Rani Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. C.Mano ... for the petitioner [on behalf of Mr.KMB Jayapal] Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents February 25, 2025 [SR] Item no.22 1.

This is a hearing matter upon affidavits.

2.

Affidavit-in-opposition is on record.

3.

Mr. C. Mano, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he shall not file affidavitin-reply and shall proceed on the basis of the existing records. 4.

Referring to Annexure P-1 at page -14 to the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of Survey No/Plot No.33/P (for short, the said land). 5.

Referring to Annexure P-3 at page -17 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the self-same plot, the Tehsildar had issued the No Dues/Non-Encumbrance Certificate with the permission to sale in favour of one R. Murugesan who was the erstwhile owner of the said land from whom the petitioner has purchased the same. The petitioner claims identical certificate from the Tehsildar. The petitioner submitted her application in the prescribed format through online process Annexure P-2 at page -16 to the writ petition.

6.

The petitioner submits that the said application has been rejected by the Tehsildar.

7.

Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel appearing for the Administration of the Islands, referring to the statements made in paragraph 8 from the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that the said land is a part of Survey No.33 being Survey No.33/P. The landed property bearing survey No.33 measuring a total area of 0.68 hectares has been jointly mutated in the names of 17 individuals apart from the writ petitioner. As such, the authority concerned returned back the application to the petitioner for obtaining NOC from the other recorded cotenants, since the subject landed property stands mutated in the name of the writ petitioner along with 16 other co-tenants. Since the survey no.33 has not yet been partitioned or subdivided, the certificate could not be issued in favour of the petitioner, as claimed by her.

8.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, at the outset, it appears that the document being Annexure P-1 at page -14 to the writ petition has not been denied or disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition.

9.

Inasmuch as, the said document was issued by the State authority and in absence of any rebuttal thereof in the affidavitin-opposition filed by the said authority, the said document stands to be sacrosanct.

10.

Learned counsel for the Administration further submits that the application submitted by the petitioner is still pending and not rejected.

11.

Prayer (ii) to the writ petition shows the petitioner claims No Dues and Non-encumbrance Certificate in connection with Survey No.33/P measuring an area of 0.0200 hectares. The measurement of the said land is also corroborated from the said document at page 14 to the writ petition, which is exclusively in the name of the petitioner.

12.

In view of the above, the jurisdictional Tehsildar, respondent no.3 herein, is directed to issue the necessary No Dues/Non-encumbrance Certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot being survey/plot no.33/P upon compliance of all the necessary formalities, in accordance with law positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

13.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/532/2024 stands allowed, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J.)