Siddharta Resort And Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/773/2023 Siddharta Resort and Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. G.Mini ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents November 23, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 1.

A prayer for extension of time to file affidavit-inopposition is made on behalf of the Administration. 2.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tehsildar dated 6th June, 2023 in connection with an application filed for demarcation of plot/sy.no.25 having an area of 285 having an area of 0.61 hectares classified as Hill and Sy. No. 286 area 1.41 hectares as hilly situated at Wandoor village under Ferrargunj Tehsil.

3.

Earlier a writ petition was filed against the Tehsildar and others for not considering the representation for demarcation. The earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Tehsildar to consider the representation of the writ petitioner.

4.

It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid order, the Tehsildar conducted survey for demarcation and it was reported that a portion of the land was occupied by one Mukunda Mondal s/o Late Bipin Mondal for a period of more than two years.

5.

The petitioner claimed that another government land bearing Sy.No.1/P situated at Wandoor village in lieu of their recorded land bearing sy.no.285 area 0.61 hectares classified as Hilly and sy.no.286 area 1/41 hectares classified as hilly is situated at Wandoor village and submitted before the Tehsildar that the said government land boundary was recognized by the Revenue Survey Team.

6.

However, the problem arose when the office of the Tehsildar received the Other Suit No.79 of 2022 ( Shri

Robin Mondal and another vs. The Lieutenant Governor and others) in which they prayed for declaration that the sketch of land bearing Sy. NO.285 and 286 having an aggregated area 2.02 hectares situated at Wandoor village under the Ferrargunj Tehsil is manufactured documents and shall be declared null and void. The present petitioner is a party in the civil suit.

7.

It is submitted by Ms. G.Mini, leaned advocate for the petitioner that there is no order of injunction restraining the Tehsildar or any authority from demarcating the land and in absence of any such order, the Teshildar could not have refused to demarcate the government land.

8.

It is further submitted that in view of the revenue survey report dated 03.03.2023, the S&D and Surveyor were directed to prepare records on the basis of the record of rights and other documents mentioned in the said order and permanent boundary marks/survey pillars under the provision of section 96(4) be erected.

9.

We have been informed by Mr. Ananda Halder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in the said suit has submitted that the plaintiffs are in occupation of a portion of the land over which the writ petitioner is making claim The injunction petition could not be heared as the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for adjournment and the matter is fixed tomorrow for hearing.

10.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar cannot decide the question of title. I direct the learned Civil Judge Senior Division to dispose of the injunction application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from tomorrow, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 11.

I make it clear that the observation made by the Tehsildar in the impugned order or in this order shall not influence the learned Civil Judge at the time of disposal of the injunction application.

12.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms; however, there shall be no order as to cost.

13.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Soumen Sen, J. )