Krishna Veni v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/922/2023 Smt. Krishna Veni.
... Petitioner Vs.
The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors. ... Respondent Ms. G. Mini ...for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ...for the Respondents June 12, 2024 [Bithika] Item No.36 Respondent seeks further accommodation to file opposition which is not allowed.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present application is delay in disposal of his representation regarding assessment of premium of the licensed land of petitioner and to create a tenancy in the revenue record. Petitioner's contention is that the Writ Petitioner had encroached a Government Revenue land for an area of 200 sq. meter being survey No. 23/17, situated at South Point village under Port Blair Tehsil, District of South Andaman prior to 1978. The Andaman & Nicobar Administration has taken out a scheme for regularization called Pre 1978 regularization scheme wherein it was mentioned that, whoever encroached a Govt. Revenue land prior to 31.12.1978 is entitled to regularize the same upto 200 sq. meter for construction of dwelling unit.
It is submitted that, as per the scheme, the said land had been regularized in 1989 and the license has been issued to the Writ petitioner on 06.07.1989. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner is in continuous possession over the land along with her family till today and she has also obtained electricity and water tap connection in the said premises.
The allegation leveled in the present Application is that she had approached on various occasion to the Authorities to assess the premium of the licensed land and thereafter to create a tenancy in the Revenue record, but the authority has not paid any heed to the request. The Writ Petitioner has also given a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2018 and thereupon the Tehsilder from the office of Settlement Commissioner had issued notice on 23.04.2018 for conducting field inspection and thereafter on 05.03.2019 Respondent No.2 fixed 26.04.2019 for hearing and thereafter on 03.05.2019 and 04.05.2019, Respondent No.2 fixed dates for hearing but nothing fruitful yielded till date nor the assessment of the premium has yet been made. Accordingly, petitioner submits that she is suffering immensely due to the act and conduct of the respondents for not assessing the premium of the licensed land and by not creating a tenancy in the Revenue Record. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case it appears to me that the Authority cannot sit over the
said application and keep the fate thereof undecided for an indefinite period. It is duty of the authorities to take up a prompt decision after hearing.
In view of the above matter, the present application being WPA No. 922/2023 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the Respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 12.03.2018 by a reasoned order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Be it mentioned that while disposing of the said representation, the said Respondent No.2 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and shall also permit to file relevant documents in support of his claim. Since no affidavit has been filed herein, the allegations made in the Writ Petition are deemed to have denied by the Respondents.
Parties to act on server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court.
( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)