Smti Jasinta Tirkey v. The Principal And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CO/71/2025 Smt. Jasinta Tirkey Vs The Principal, ANCOL and another Mr. K.Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents November 25, 2025 [AKB] Item No.1 Suppli. List The petitioner is a occupier of the concerned plot of lands within Survey No. 234/1 and 234/14 against whom a notice under Section of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been issued on 13.04.2021. According to Mr. K.

Vijay Kumar, learned advocate representing the petitioner, that before issuance of such notice by pasting it on the premises of the petitioner, the same has never been served upon the petitioner and/or she has not been given any opportunity of hearing before the competent authority under the said Act, which is, according to learned advocate a pre-condition for issuance of a notice as above. It has further been submitted that an Estate Appeal No. 28 of 2021 was preferred by the present petitioner before the learned District Judge. Allegedly by dint of a judgment dated 10.10.2025 learned District Judge has turned down the petitioner's prayer in the said appeal only erroneously and without consideration of the records.

Hence this revision is filed challenging said judgment of the learned District Judge and seeking relief that the notice of the eviction be immediately set aside.

Parties are represented.

According to the respondent authorities sufficient opportunity of hearing has already been granted to the petitioner. According to the said respondent, the petitioner has not been able to come forth with any sufficient document substantiating her claim of ownership or valid possession over the said property. That, she is only an encroacher, Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted. Having heard both the learned advocates and perusal of the documents, it appears that petitioner, who was duty bound under the law, to come up before this Court with sufficient pleadings and documents of proof of her own case regarding ownership/rightful possession of the concerned landed property. Since there is admittedly none, it is found without any doubt that she has failed to discharge her such duty. In such circumstances the present Civil Revision cannot be found to have been based on adequate and sufficient materials to substantiate the grounds pleaded by the petitioner. Hence the present Civil Revision merits no success. Civil Revision being CO/71/2025 is dismissed.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)