Rebaran Sarkar v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK WPA/696/2024 REBARAN SARKAR ... PETITIONER VS.

THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner :

Ms. G. Mini For the Administration :

Mr. V. D. Sivabalan For the Private Respondent :

Mr. Lokesh Chezian Heard on :

February 18, 2026 Delivered on :

February 18, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1.

Order dated November 27, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District is under challenge in this writ petition.

2.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the daughter of late Atindranath Sarkar in whose favour, the record of rights in respect of two plots namely survey plot no. 137 and 222 were standing. She submits that,

on the application of the petitioner, the authorities mutated the names of the two legal heirs being petitioner as also the private respondent in respect of both the plots. However, in the remarks column, the authorities entered a noting, as if to demarcate the plots amongst the two private parties. She submits that the remarks entered in the record of rights dated January 06, 1998 is wholly without jurisdiction.

3.

Being aggrieved, petitioner approached the authorities initially. Writ petition was filed. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order January 18, 2024 requiring the authorities to decide on it. The impugned decision was passed purportedly in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. 4.

Authorities and the private respondent are represented. 5.

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent raises the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court. He submits that, since there exist a statutory alternative remedy under Regulation 38(4) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, the writ petitioner should be asked to avail such alternative remedy. 6.

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the record of rights is not under challenge in the

present writ petition. Therefore, the noting in the remarks, is not under challenge by the writ petitioner.

7.

Petitioner and private respondent are the heirs and legal representatives of Atindranath Sarkar.

8.

Atindranath Sarkar, was the recorded owner in respect of two plots namely survey plot no. 137 and 222. 9.

Upon death of Atindranath Sarkar, the petitioner approached the authorities for mutation, which was allowed. The record of rights, is annexure P-1 to the writ petition. Records of rights, mutated the two plots in favour of both the petitioner and the private respondent. However, the remarks column contained the following writing :- "Mutation allowed jointly in favour of Shri. Budhimanta Sarkar and Smti. Rebarani Sarkar vide R.C. No. 110 of 1997 (see Order Book at Sl.No.56) 1000 Sqmtr out of Sy. No. 137 will be the share of Smti. Rebarani Sarkar and remaining will be the share of Budhimanta Sarkar as per mutation order."

10.

No provision of law is placed before me to suggest let alone establish that, the authority who allowed the mutation possessed jurisdiction to make the aforenoted remark as contained in the record of rights. It is not for the mutation authorities to decide how much area of plot number will be the share of the petitioner and how much will be share of the private respondent. Mutation authorities cannot act as a civil

court and divide and demarcate the moveable properties between the private parties. Private parties did not agree to the demarcation as made by the remarks.

11.

Notwithstanding existence of statutory alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable, if it is established that, authorities acted wholly without jurisdiction or the impugned order was perverse or arbitrary or passed in breach of principle natural justice.

12.

In the facts and the circumstances of the present case, although there is exist a statutory alternative remedy, the writ petition nonetheless is found to be maintainable in view of the fact that the mutation authorities proceeded to act as a civil court to demarcate the plots concerned amongst the private parties. The mutation authorities did not possess such jurisdiction or right to do so.

13.

Impugned order proceeds on the basis of noting made in the record of rights. Foundational basis of the impugned order is therefore bad.

14.

Impugned order set aside.

15.

It is the contention of the private respondent that, the noting in the record of rights is not under challenge.

16.

With the deepest of respect, it is because of that noting only, the petitioner approached the writ Court which ultimately resulted in the impugned order. The noting therefore, was always challenge by the petitioner.

17.

In view of the finding that the noting as set out in paragraph 9 herein is without jurisdiction, the same is also quashed.

18.

WPA/696/2024 is allowed. No order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)