Sobha Singh v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK WPA/878/2023 SOBHA SINGH ... PETITIONER VS.

THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ...

RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :

Mr. K.M.B Jayapal For the Administration :

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

Mr. Ananda Halder Heard on :

February 18, 2026 Delivered on :

February 18, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1.

Writ petition assails the grant of licence made by the Administration in favour of the private respondent in respect of 302 Sq.mtrs. of excess land comprised in plot Nos. 195 and 195/1 subsequently renumbered as 1059.

2.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in joint possession of the private respondent with respect to such plot of land. The impugned licence does not recognize the possession of the petitioner in respect of such plot. Consequently, the

impugned licence should be set aside and a direction should be issued to the authorities for issuance of a licence in respect of such plot both in the name of petitioner as well as private respondent. 3.

In support of the contention that the petitioner is in possession of the subject plot, learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon a supplementary affidavit filed by the Administration pursuant to the order dated April 10, 2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench. He refers to such supplementary affidavit and submits that, there is the statement of details of excess area in possession of 1972 Settlers priors to 1961 annexed and referred to as Exhibit '3'. He refers to the various columns in such Exhibit '3'. He submits that, name of the petitioner appears as one of the occupants in column 13 of such document.

4.

Private respondent and the Administration are represented. 5.

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, there is a series of litigation between the parties. In one of the litigation, a settlement was sought to be made both in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent based upon the document annexed to the supplementary affidavit which was marked as Exhibit

3. He submit that, such settlement was set aside by the Coordinate Bench.

6.

Referring to Exhibit 3 being the document which the petitioner relied upon in support of his claim for possession, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent draws the attention of this

Court to the various columns. He submits that, the name of the occupant in column 13, is in relation to survey plot No. 195/1 and nothing else. The licence therefore was correctly granted. 7.

There were a number of litigations between the private parties involving the right to receive a licence in respect of the excess area of land in comprised in survey plot No. 1059. The excess area is 302 sq. mtrs. The litigations ultimately culminated into the impugned order by which, the authorities granted licence to the private respondent in respect of such area of land.

8.

Case of the petitioner is not a breach of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. Petitioner was heard prior to the issuance of impugned order. Impugned order contains reasons. 9.

Exhibit 3 is put forward as claim to demonstrate that the petitioner is also in possession of the area question. Exhibit 3 contains 18 columns. These 18 columns are divided into three categories. Column 1 to 6 relates to 1961 records. Column 7 to 17 relates to present possession. Within column 7 to 17 which records the present possession, column 7 to 12 deals with recorded tenant/descendants, while column 13 to 17 deals with purchasers/ occupants. Column 18 is under the heading of remarks. 10.

Column 2 which falls under the 1961 records notes two persons to be in possession in respect of two plots of land namely 195 and 195/1 corresponding to plot No. 1059.

11.

Column 7 names Smt. Radhika Devi who is the daughter of Kanaya Lall to be in possession of plot No. 195 and its excess area. Petitioner is not recorded within column 7 to 12. 12.

Name of the petitioner appears in column Nos. 13 to 17 and in particular in column No. 13. Petitioner along with one Smt. Usha Haridas are said to be occupants of plot No. 195/1. Petitioner is not shown to be in occupation of plot No. 195. Petitioner is also not the descendant of Kanaya Lall who is recorded occupant of plot No. 195 as appearing from column No. 2 and 3. Petitioner is also not the descendant of Brij Lall who is recorded as the occupant of plot No. 195/1. Petitioner apparently purchased plot No. 195/1 along with Smt. Usha Haridas from Brij Lall.

13.

Documents placed on record therefore, does not extend any right, title and interest or possession, in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. 195.

14.

Consequently, the licence granted in favour of the private respondent by the Administration cannot be assailed on the grounds canvassed by the petitioner before Court.

15.

WPA/878/2023 is dismissed, without any order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)