Mrs.Deep Kaur v. The Deputy Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/536/2025 Mrs. Deep Kaur Vs The Deputy Commissioner Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent December 19, 2025 [AKB] Item No.20 1.
Supplementary affidavit as called for has been filed. 2.
The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to grant "Gift permission" to the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to her.
3.
It is the case of the petitioner that vide an order dated 31.10.2025 the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District has rejected the petitioner's prayer for "transfer of interest over the non agricultural land" as prayed for. 4.
The findings of the Deputy Commissioner is as follows: "As proposed by DC Reader, an interim order has been passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division with the direction upon the defendant restraining from changing the nature and character of the suit land which is vacant land and from raising any new construction over the suit land details described in the schedule of the plaint in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the suit. As per the order of the Hon'ble Court, the land is not free from all encumbrance, hence rejected."
5.
On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusals of the materials on record, it appears that Form F issued by the office of the Tehsildar, Andaman and Nicobar
Administration shows that the property in question sought to be transferred stands in the name of the petitioner. 6.
There is no dispute at this stage regarding the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the land sought to be transferred. 7.
Admittedly the petitioner has initiated a Civil Suit being Other Suit 73 of 2018/Other Suit 83 of 2016 wherein the learned Joint Civil Judge on hearing the parties in the suit for eviction and recovery of possession, granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant therein from changing the nature and character of the suit land or raising any new construction.
8.
It is this order of the Civil Court which has been held to be an "encumbrance" by the Deputy Commissioner's office. 9.
On perusal of the copy of the written statement filed by the way of supplementary affidavit, it appears that the specific case of the defendant before the Civil Suit is as follows: "It is further submitted that demarcation of the suit land held on 22-03-2003 and it is found that an area of land measuring 100 Sq. mtrs out of the suit land was under my occupation and as it was a bonafied mistake, the defendant herein voluntary shifted his fencing and surrendered the land to the revenue department and the matter has been settled. Even after resolving the boundary dispute, the plaintiff did not take possession of the suit land having full knowledge that she got better land at Dollygunj village in lieu of the suit land.
It is further submitted that after shifting his fencing in the year 2003 he never extended his occupation and the defendant is in rightful possession over his recorded land."
10. As such on considering the said pleading in the said written statement it appears that defendant has surrendered his wrongly occupied portion of the petitioner's land which was done without any mala fide intension being a bona fide mistake.
11. Be that as it may, the Civil Court has to decide the suit pending before it in accordance with law.
12. But this Court finds that the authority (Reader) on the behalf of the Deputy Commissioner has come to a wrong finding vide impugned order dated 31.10.2025, as it is only a prayer for transfer of interest over a non agricultural land which prima facie is under the ownership of the petitioner on the basis of records filed.
13. The fact that whether the defendant is in unlawful possession of the suit property or not is not a matter to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner while considering a prayer for transfer of land, of which the applicant is prima facie the owner, as it is the purchaser or the transfree who shall be the best person to decide, whether to accept the transfer of the land at his or her own risk.
14. The prayer of transfer could arise on the ground of necessity and other factors. As such the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondent Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the petitioner's application for transfer afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order and dispose of the same on hearing the petitioner, by considering the documents in support of her claim, which is to prima facie satisfy the right, title of the petitioner in the land concerned and dispose of the said application within thirty days from the date of communication of this order by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of along with all connected application, if any.
16. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]