Shri. Hirday Narayan v. The Lieutenant Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/637/2024 Shri Hirday Narayan Vs The Lieutenant Governor and others Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent nos.1 to 3 Ms. A.S.Zinu ... for the respondent no.4 March 03, 2025 [SR] Item no.23 1.

This is a hearing of the writ petition upon affidavits. The respondent no.4 has filed affidavit-in-opposition to which the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not filed affidavit-in-opposition but have placed records before this Court.

2.

Mr. Ananda Halder, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Ms. A.S. Zinu, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.4 3.

The petitioner claims to be the son of one Moti Ram since deceased. The respondent no.4 claims to be the married daughter of the said Moti Ram, since deceased. The other son namely Ganga Saran since deceased left his legal heirs. Paragraph 6 from the writ petition, the status of the deceased son is available.

4.

The petitioner submits that the deceased father had an excess land. Referring to an executive communication/ instruction dated July 15, 2003 Annexure P-1 at page 15 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the said instruction provides for settlement of such excess land. The claimant shall be only who are the legal heirs of the original occupants and are in continuous and uninterrupted possession on the said excess land. The petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 is not in possession of the land, since she got married in the year 1966.

5.

The petitioner submits that the legal heirs of Ganga Saran since deceased are also in possession in respect of the said excess land. The petitioner being in possession has now claimed regularisation of the said excess land in his favour as also in favour of the legal heirs of Ganga Saran, since deceased. 6.

The petitioner has submitted a representation dated October 07, 2024, Annexure P-4 at page 20 to the writ petition, before the Administration but the same has not yet been disposed of.

7.

Ms.

A.S.Zinu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has denied and disputed the submissions of the petitioner. She says that she is also one of the bonafide and lawful claimant in respect of the said excess land along with the two brothers and/or their legal heirs. Accordingly, she opposes the writ petition with the contention that her name which is already on record in her favour along with her brother and/or their legal heir shall remain. The petitioner seeks to delete the name of the respondent no.4 which is not permitted in law. 8.

Ms Babita Das, learned advocate appearing for the Administration submits that the said executive instruction was issued in respect of the 1942 settlement scheme and the scheme shall be applicable for the persons who were in occupation prior to 1961.

9.

Ms. Das further submits that the respondent no.4 found to have been an occupier in respect of the said excess land since prior to 1961 as per the encroachment record. Therefore, the recording of the name of the respondent no.4 in the existing records as one of the occupiers in respect of an excess land is valid in law. The learned counsel for the Administration further submits that the respondent no.4 admittedly got married that in 1966 so it is presumed that in 1961 or prior thereto, she was in occupation and possession of the subject land. 10.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this court that certain fact finding enquiries are required to be done constructively, which is not the job of the writ court. 11.

In view of the above, the petitioner shall further serve a copy of the complete set of writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and reply filed therein along with a copy of the today's order upon the respondent no.2 forthwith. The petitioner shall also serve same set of documents along with copy of today's order upon the existing legal heirs of Ganga Saran, since deceased, who are in possession and occupation of the said excess land also.

12.

The respondent no.2, then, upon issuing a prior hearing notice of at least three weeks upon the petitioner, the respondent no.4 and all interested parties and occupiers being the legal heirs of Ganga Saran, since deceased in respect of the land and after granting them an opportunity of hearing shall decide the issue and dispose of the said representation dated October 07, 2024, as referred to above, by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

13.

It is made clear that, this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. The parties and the legal heirs of Ganga Saran, since deceased and/or other interested parties, if any, on the subject land shall be at liberty to urge whatever points they wish to urge by relying upon whatever documents and records they wish to rely upon before the respondent no.2 but the same shall not travel beyond the scope of this writ petition.

14.

In the event, the reasoned order confirms that the recording of the name of the respondent no.4 is just, proper and lawful, the recording of the land record showing the name of the respondent no.4 shall not be disturbed in any way. In the event, the reasoned order shows that the recording of the name of the respondent no.4 in the land record as an occupier on the excess land is not in accordance with law, then her name shall be deleted from the land record and the land record shall be corrected and/or rectified accordingly.

15.

The entire exercise shall be carried and completed by the respondent no.2 positively within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 16.

The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner, respondent no.4 and other interested parties on the land, who shall attend the hearing.

17.

The respondent no.4 submits that she is in possession but the petitioner denies and disputes the same. 18.

It is made clear that this order shall not create any equity or right in favour of any of the parties if they do not succeed to their respective claim before the respondent no.2, strictly in accordance with law.

19.

It is further made clear that the observations, if any, made by this court shall not influence the decision making process of the respondent no.2 and he shall decide the issue independently but strictly in accordance with law. 20.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition WPA/637/2024 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )