Nishat Salam v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/1024/2023 Nishat Salam Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents November 24, 2023 [SR] Item No.8

1. Mr. Md.Tabraiz, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that on identical facts, a direction was passed by a Coordinate Bench on 22nd December, 2022 in Shri Mohammed Ebrahim Jadwet and another vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others by which the petitioners in the said writ petition were permitted to transfer and/or alienate the subject land on the mandatory condition that such transfer would mean that the land in question is a house site/residential property.

2. The dispute arose with regard to the prayer for reversion of the character of the land from commercial to agricultural.

3. In the context of the reversion of the land from commercial to house site, a Coordinate Bench on interpretation of Rules 9(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Island land Revenue and Land Reforms (Amendment)Rules, 2017 held that the said transfer cannot be considered to be a voluntary diversion

(conversion). It is an automatic statutory consequence, if a land, converted to commercial category is sought to be alienated within 10 years therefore is not used for commercial purposes.

4. The learned Single Justice Rajasekhar Mantha has further held that - "The land in question reverts to automatically to its original status of use i.e. "housing". No policy can be taken by the Administration in derogation of such automatic statutory consequence."

5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the administration submits that the said order was accepted and implemented, however, land in question has been classified as agricultural land.

6. Having regard to the fact that the present petitioner stands almost on the same footing as that of the writ petitioners in WPA/975/2022 save and except the classification of the land which does not appear to be a material consideration, in view of Rules 9(b) as interpreted by Justice Mantha, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to transfer and/or alienate the subject land on the mandatory condition that such transfer would mean that the land in question is an agricultural property. The said property may be transferred in accordance with law subject to compliance of all other rules and conditions, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

7. Since affidavit is not called for, the allegations made in the writ petitioner are deemed to have been not admitted.

8. The writ petition is disposed of, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

9. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Soumen Sen, J. )