M.Ramaswamy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/863/2023 M Ramaswamy Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. V D Sivabalan ... for the respondents July 04, 2025 [SR] Item No. 15 The petitioner challenges an order dated December 30, 2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, whereby the petitioner's request for acceptance of premium in respect of the plot of land in question was rejected. It appears that the said order was passed in compliance with a direction contained in an earlier order dated November 15, 2021, passed in WPA/247/2021, wherein the Deputy Commissioner was directed by a Single Bench of this Court to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's representation dated November 9, 2020, seeking acceptance of premium in respect of land purportedly allotted in his favour.

The impugned order indicates that a field inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. It was found that the total area under occupation was 372.00 sq. meters, whereas the licence was originally granted only for an area of 250.00 sq. meters. The inspection report further recorded that the petitioner had subsequently sold 188.00 sq. meters and 184.

sq. meters of land to one Shri M. Shanmugam and one Smt. R. Rita, respectively.

In view of the above findings in the inspection report, the Deputy Commissioner declined to accept the premium from the licensee.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner denies the allegation and submits that the petitioner never sold the said plot, or any portion thereof, to any third party. It is contended that there is no registered sale deed or any other documentary evidence to suggest such a transfer. He further submits that mere possession of the land by a third party on the date of inspection cannot, by itself, amount to proof of sale or delivery of possession.

This Court, however, is not in a position to disbelieve the inspection report relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner, especially since the inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner did not sell the plot or any part thereof, it remains undisputed that, on the date of inspection, Shri M. Shanmugam was found occupying 188.00 sq. meters of the land with a constructed RCC building thereon. While the remaining 184.00 sq. meters was found to be vacant, the specific finding of the inspection report is that the said portion had been sold to Smt. R. Rita.

This Court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate factual disputes of this nature. Accordingly, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition. However, nothing in this order

shall preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. WPA/863/2023 is, accordingly, disposed of.

( Kausik Chanda, J. )