Smti. B.Sayamma v. The Deputy Commissioner And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/718/2024 Smt. B.Sayamma Vs The Deputy Commissioner and another Mr. R.Arul Peter ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das Ms. Prem Pushpa Bai ... for the respondents January 8, 2025 [AKB] Item Nos.1 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being unable to obtain any response from either the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, Port Blair or from the Sub Registrar, South Andaman, Port Blair as regard to the property bearing the survey No. 648 classified as hilly and situated at Calicuit village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman duly compressed in holding no. (New) 2937 of Calicuit village. Mr. Arul Peter, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner had lodged an undated complaint against Smt. J Dhana Laxmi wife of Shri. B.

Shiva before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, Port Blair on 14.12.2022 being annexure P2 and another complaint against Shri B.Shiva Kumar and his wife Smt. J Dhana Laxmi before the Sub Registrar, South Andaman, Port Blair requesting to cancel the gift deed dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure P3).

The learned counsel further submits that in spite of the reminder being sent to the said Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Registrar on 09.04.2024 no action has yet been taken on behalf of both the respondents. Being unable to obtain any response the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Hon'ble Court through the present writ petition seeking relief.

The learned counsel further submits that let there be a direction having time frame upon both the respondents to act in respect of the complaints.

Per contra, Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that this matter involves disputed questions of fact. She further submits that two civil suits are pending involving the self same property one being a suit for specific

performance of contract filed by the petitioner who is the step mother of B. Shiva. This suit being O.S. No.21 of 2020 is pending before the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair and another suit instituted by the respondents is a suit for declaration being Title Suit No.07 of 2021 is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair. She further submits that the present lis is civil in nature and there being two civil suits pending, the question of interference is unwarranted. Learned counsel submits that as per Annexure 3 sale deed and a gift deed are in question. She further submits that the private respondents against whom the complaint has been lodged i.e. B. Shiva Kumar and his wife Smt. J Dhana Laxmi have not been made parties herein.

She further submits that from the Annexure P4 i.e. reminder application it transpires that request has been made to the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Registrar to cancel the gift deed dated 20.05.2015 which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents.

Relying upon the aforesaid submission the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present writ application. On perusal of the complaint dated 14.12.2022 being Annexure P 2 lodged before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, Port Blair by the petitioner, it reveals that the complaint has been lodged against Smt. J. Dhana Laxmi the wife of Shri B. Shiva stating that some shops have been constructed in respect of the land bearing survey no. 263/1/8 situated at Calicuit, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman and rent is being collected from the tenants. It has also been contended that the said land has been converted into commercial land without following the due process of law. From the Annexure P3 i.e.

the undated complaint made by the petitioner before the Sub Registrar, South Andaman, Port Blair it transpires that request has been made to cancel the gift deed dated 20.05.2015 and from the Annexure P4 i.e. the reminder dated 09.04.2024 sent by the petitioner addressing both the respondents wherein also request has been made to cancel the gift deed dated 20.05.2015. From the annexure P3 i.e. undated complaint before the Sub Registrar, South Andaman, Port Blair and annexure P4 i.e. the reminder application dated 09.04.2024 it is apparent that the petitioner has sought for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20.05.2015. In view of the aforesaid prayers made by the petitioner before the respondents it is apparent that she has sought for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20.05.

2015 which in the opinion of this Court is not within the jurisdiction of the concerned respondents i.e. either the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub Registrar, South Andaman, Port Blair.

It is worth mentioning that a suit for specific performance of contract which has been filed by the petitioner is pending before the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair being Other Suit No. 21/2020 and another declaratory suit filed by J. Dhana Laxmi the wife of B Shiva Kumar is also pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair bearing Title Suit No. 7/ 2021. In both the civil suits the petitioner is party, one having been filed by herself while the other been filed against her. The matter involved is purely civil in nature and does not relate to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or any arbitrary and high-handed action. In this context this Court relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Syed Maqbool Ali-VsState of Uttar Pradesh & Another published in (2011) 15 SCC

383. In the paragraph No. 11 the following has been stated: "11.When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts. The question that will ultimately weigh with the High Court is this: whether the person is seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-handed action."

In the aforementioned facts this court is of the opinion that no direction is required to be passed as such the present writ petition is dismissed without cost.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)