Shri.Balakrishnan Nair v. The Tehsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/54/2025 Shri Balakrishnan Nair Vs.

The Tehsildar Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the appellant Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent February 25, 2026 [SR] Item No.21 Appeal is directed against an order dated November 06, 2025 passed in WPA 500 of 2025.

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge found that, the appellant, possesses statutory alternative remedy. Learned Single Judge therefore, permitted the parties to exhaust their statutory alternative remedy.

Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the authorities, entered into the house belonging to the appellant without notice. Appellant upon coming to know of the illegal activities issued a notice to the authorities. He refers to the Regulations of 1966 and submits that, there is an automatic stay of any demolition process for a period of three months immediately on receipt of the notice. He submits that, despite such notice being given by the appellant, the demolition took place. Articles belonging to the appellant were removed. At the very minimum, appellant is entitled to return of such articles seized in the demolition process.

Learned Advocate appearing for the authority submits that, some articles were seized of which, a list was prepared. She makes over a list of the seized articles to the Court which

be taken on record. She submits that, the appellant is not residing in these Islands and therefore, there is an issue as to the person to whom such seized articles are to be made over. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the seized articles may be made over to the power of attorney holder through whom, the writ petition and the appeal were filed.

It appears from the records that, a demolition drive was undertaken by the authorities when, property belonging to the appellant was partly demolished. In the process of part demolition, certain articles were seized. Seized articles, may be made over to the power of attorney holder of the appellant, by the authorities within a fortnight from date. There exists statutory alternative remedy so far as the grievances of the appellant are concerned. It cannot be said that, such statutory alternative remedy is not expeditious or speedy or adequate.

In such circumstance, the appellant before us can avail of the statutory alternative remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised.

MAT/54/2025 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)