Prathiba Devi And Others v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1101/2023 Prathiba Devi and others Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K.Vijay Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr.Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents.

January 10, 2024 [SR] Item No.16 The order impugned is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District dated March 06, 2018. By the said order, the petitioners' representation for regularisation of the excess land allegedly occupied by the petitioners measuring about 500 sq.mtrs in survey No.150/2, was rejected.

According to the petitioners, such occupation was at Haddo Village under Port Blair Tehsil.

Such order was passed, pursuant to a direction of this Court upon the Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioners contend that, solely based on the Milan Khatuni Register, the authority came to the conclusion that no excess land was occupied by the petitioners.

The petitioners refer to a notice issued by the authority some time in 2004, asking one Sanjiva to be present during the survey to be conducted, for the purpose of regularisation of the excess land allegedly held by the settler. The petitioners contend that such notice implies that the petitioners were in possession of excess land through their ancestor. The authority had directed Sanjiva to be present during the survey

of the excess land, for the purpose of regularisation. The proposal for regularisation was based on an approval given by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. On the basis of the said approval, those pre-42 settlers, who were in possession of the excess area of land within old Port Blair Municipal limits, would be granted regularisation, in case such excess possession of area was found in the survey of 1961.

The Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the petitioners did not have any excess land as per the records. As per the records, the recorded area under Survey plot No.150, was 600 Sq,mtrs. The Milan Khatuni did not record any excess land.

Having perused the said notice, it appears to the Court that the petitioners' alleged predecessor were asked to be present at the survey of some plots which were mentioned in the notice. Plot No.150/2, in respect of which the petitioners claim to be possessing excess area of 500 sq.mtrs, was not included in the said notice.

Whether survey plot no.150/2 was a part of survey no.150, is not available from the records. The notice was issued allegedly to the father-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners' representation, which is at page 21, indicates that they prayed for regularisation of 500 Sq.mtrs of excess land, lying adjacent to their recorded land bearing survey no.150/2 measuring 420 sq.mtrs, situated at Haddo Village.

According to the petitioners, apart from 420 sq.mtrs at Haddo Village in survey no.150/2, which was recorded in their

name as a tenants, the petitioners were possessing an excess area of 500 sq.mtrs, adjacent to the said land. The factual dispute which has cropped up is whether the notice issued to the Sajiva, by the Tehsildar (Settlement), Port Blair, created any right in favour of the petitioners for grant of regularisation of excess land in respect of plot no.150/2. The plots mentioned in the said notice does not cover the plot no.150/2. Whether plot no.150/2, is a separate plot in respect of which 420 sq.mtrs had been recorded in the name of the petitioners or had been bifurcated from plot no.150, and was possessed by the father-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 from pre-1942, cannot be ascertained. Moreover, the prayers in the writ petition are in respect of plot no.148/1, whereas the order impugned has been passed in respect of plot no.150/2.

The representation of the petitioner does not deal with plot no.148/1. The prayers in the writ petition and the cause of action do not tally. This Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate these factual aspects and arrive at a decision. The order impugned is an appealable order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority as per the statute. The appellate authority shall decide the matter by causing a joint inspection through an official representative. Inspection shall be held with prior notice to the petitioner. The report shall be supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, appeal shall be heard and disposed of on the basis of the reports, records and evidence. The petitioners shall be heard.

A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners. Entire exercise will be completed within three

months from date of receiving the copy of the appeal, to be filed by the petitioners.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )