Rajesh Xess v. The Lt.Governor And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/890/2023 Rajesh Xess Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others Mr. Mit Guha Roy (through virtual mode) Mr. Pardeshia Munda ... for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the respondent no. 1-6 Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent no. 7 Mr. Pranay Prasun ... for the respondent no.9 (on behalf of Mr. P. M. Lall) March 12, 2025 [AKB] Item No.22

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for an order to quash and set aside the sale permission dated 13.02.2015 issued by the Assistant Commissioner South Andaman District, concerning transfer of interest of the private respondent over the non agricultural land (House Site) bearing Survey No. 1074/3 situated at Junglighat village under Port Blair Tehsil without formation of sub division of land of other co-tenants.

2. It is a petitioner's case that the petitioner had acquired interest of the private respondent in respect of undivided share of land on 17.08.2017 by a registered sale deed in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1074/3 at House Site situated at village Junglighat under Port Blair Tehsil. According to the petitioner consequent upon purchase of the aforesaid property the petitioner

caused his name to be mutated and recorded as owner in respect of 162.50 Sq.mtrs. of land out of the total land area of 904 Sq.mtrs. of land of the Survey No. 1074/3 at House Site situated at village Junglighat under Port Blair Tehsil.

3. According to the petitioner's case that the Director of Industries, Port Blair had issued a 'No Objection Certificate' on 24.04.2014 in favour of the private respondent in respect of sale of his remaining land of Survey No. 1074/3 at House Site.

4. Subsequently, the administration had issued a sale permission on 13.02.2015 in favour of the private respondent for transfer of his interest in the aforesaid plot of land. Such permission appears to have been granted under Section 159 (9) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, (in short the Regulation). This according to the petitioner could not have been done since, the land was not sub divided with the other cotenants.

5. The petitioner, however, would submit that such permission had been granted without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and also does not have the sanction of law.

6. Mr. Mit Guha Roy, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that unless the land-in-question is sub divided, no such permission can be granted. He would further submit in this case no consent was also obtained from the petitioner prior to the administration granting the sale permission. According to him by reasons of grant of the sale permission the petitioner's right to ingress and egress to his property is seriously impacted.

7. Mr. V. D. Sivabalan, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the primary objection of the of the petitioner is with regard to grant of sale permission without the land in question being subdivided amongst the co tenants. I, however find from the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that in the instant case on the basis of an application made by the petitioner along with the private respondent, the plot in question being Survey Plot No.

1074/3 was sub divided vide an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman dated 25.02.2017.

9. Although the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not take any steps for sub division, in the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of the petitioner the claim that the petitioner and the private respondent had jointly applying for sub division of the concerned survey plot for subdivision has not dealt with at all.

10.

Although, the petitioner would complain that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner prior to according sale permission, a perusal of Section 159 (9) of the Regulation does not provide for any consent from the co-tenants prior to issuance of any permission for transfer. To more fully appreciate this scope of Section 159 (9) of the said Regulation the same is extracted here in below "159 (9) The interest of a licence of non-agricultural land shall not be transferable except with the previous permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner and subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by him.

Provided that where within a period of four months after the receipt of any application from any licence, for permission to transfer his interest in any non-agricultural lands being a house site, the Chief Commissioner does not refuse permission or upon refusal, does not communicate the refusal to the licence, then the Chief Commissioner shall be deemed to have granted permission for transfer."

11.

Having regarding to the above, I am of the view that there is very little scope to grant any relief to the petitioner.

12.

The petitioner could not establish before this Court any legal right to resist the issuance of sale permission by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the private respondent especially, having regard to the fact that the plot in question has already been subdivided at the instance of the petitioner. 13.

Since, the petitioner would complain that the petitioner's egress and ingress is being interfered with, I am of the view that disposal of the aforesaid writ petition should not interfere with the petitioner's right to seek for appropriate remedy for protecting it right of egress and ingress, if so advised.

14.

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition WPA/890/2023 is disposed of.

15.

There is no order as to the costs.

( Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. )