Shri.Dilip Das v. The Deputy Commissioner And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/721/2024 Shri Dilip Das Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and another Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents January 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.2 1.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that a suit was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction including recovery of possession. The Title Suit No.25 of 2000 was decreed ex parte after considering the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner's father. The decree is dated 03.10.2012 declaring the right of the petitioner's father with respect to the lands in question. Based on such decree, an application for mutation was made on 05.02.2013. 2.

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondent no.2 to proceed with and dispose off the petitioner's application for mutation of the lands in question.

3.

The land in question is bearing survey Nos.146, 147 (revised as Sy.No.254) situated at Humfrygunj Village under Ferrargunj Tehsil.

4.

In view of the application being made, the Patwari submitted a report on 18.10.2013 in this regard. Thereafter, the

authorities have not proceeded in the matter for the last more than a decade.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Administration was directed to take instructions whether the mutation application is still pending or not, and if so for what reasons. 6.

Having obtained instructions, pendency of the mutation application is admitted. The instructions given to the learned counsel for the respondent-Administration regarding the reasons for the pendency are, however, unacceptable. They stated that the petitioner has not approached the Tehsildar. 7.

This Court finds such submission to be unacceptable in view of the procedure specified in Rule 135 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968. The same specifies the procedure to be followed when mutation is to be effected in the record of rights.

8.

From perusal of the same, it is obvious that the same contemplates issuance of notices by the authorities including the Patwari and the Tehsildar.

9.

Apparently, no notice has been issued by the Tehsildar and there is apparent administrative inertia in respect of the petitioner's application for mutation.

10.

It is trite that where an obligation is cast on an authority, as under the present circumstances, cast by the Rule 135 of the 1968 Rules, and he failed to discharge his obligation, then the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for directing the authority to discharge his obligation.

10.

The writ petition is thus allowed with the direction upon the respondent no.2 to immediately proceed with the mutation application in terms of the procedure specified in the 1968 Rules upon due notice to the parties likely to be affected and conclude the same expeditiously by fixing dates without giving unnecessary adjournments or undue delay.

( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )