Calcutta HC in A. Alagu vs. The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors. [01.11.2019]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

W.P. No. 20298 (W) of 2019

Decided On: 01.11.2019

A. Alagu

Versus

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Subrata Talukdar, J.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Krishna Rao and P.C. Das

For Respondents/Defendant: Rajasree Halder and P.K. Das

DECISION

Subrata Talukdar, J.

1. Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

2. The writ petition pertains to an area of land in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (for short A & N Islands).

3. Since the Circuit Bench at A & N Islands is not in session at present, the writ petition is sought to be moved by Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, before this Court holding regular Land determination on an urgent basis.

4. Notice is served on the respondents and Mr. Halder, learned Counsel, appears for the A & N Administration (the Administration).

5. Mr. Rao submits that the said area of land is the subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) numbered as WP 026 of 2019. The Hon'ble Division Bench refused to intervene in the PIL and permitted the present petitioner/a Respondent to the PIL, to take steps in accordance with law. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench was further pleased to permit the Administration to file a Report when the PIL appears next.

6. The attention of this Court is drawn to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short the 1966 Regulation) and particularly Sections 202 (7) and 202(8) thereof. It will be relevant for this discussion to reproduce the above sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 202.

"(7) No order made under sub-section [1] shall prevent any person from establishing his right in a civil court.

(8) If notice of an intention to institute a suit is delivered to the Tehsildar, he shall desist from carrying out his order under sub-section [1] for a period of three months, and if such suit is filed within such period he shall stay his proceedings pending the decision of the civil court."

7. Having regard to the above provisions incorporated in the 1966 Regulation, Mr. Rao submits that the petitioner has served notice upon the Administration on the 3rd of October, 2019 intending to challenge the impugned order passed by the Tehsildar, Port Blair/the Respondent No. 3 to this writ petition before the appropriate civil Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that inspite of the notice under Section 202(8) of the 1966 Regulation, by a further order dated 22nd October, 2019, the Tehsildar/the Respondent No. 3 has threatened to evict the petitioner from the said area of land on and by the 5th of November, 2019.

8. Hence the urgency.

9. Mr. Halder, learned Counsel for the Administration, draws the attention of this Court to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011 @ SLP (c) No. 3109/2011 In Re: Jagpal Singh & Ors. -vs- State of Punjab & Ors.

10. Mr. Halder submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it abundantly clear that illegal occupation of Gram Panchayat land shall not be permitted and such land must be vacated in the interests of the community at large. This Court is also apprised by learned Counsel for the Administration of a Title Suit of 2019 (not numbered) marked as annexure P-4 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has prayed for right of possession and permanent injunction over the said area of land.

11. Accordingly, the stand is taken by the Administration that this Court ought not to interfere in the proceedings for eviction drawn up by the Tehsildar/the Respondent No. 3.

12. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court notices that by the solemn order in the PIL the Hon'ble Division Bench did not intervene permitting the petitioner to pursue his remedy as per law.

13. Consequentially, the petitioner, to the mind of this Court, was permitted to follow his remedy as provided by Sections 202 (7) and 202 (8) of the 1966 Regulation. In the face of the provisions in the 1966 Regulation having the force of statute, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Jagpal Singh & Ors. (supra) must be, with respect, harmoniously read.

14. This Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in a manner as to deprive the petitioner of a forum of remedy available under the statute. It is evident that the period of three months to file the civil suit challenging the order of the Tehsildar/the Respondent No. 3 dated 27th September, 2019 has not expired. Therefore, in the interregnum, the Administration cannot act in a manner violating its own Regulation.

15. Being conscious of the fact that another Title Suit for a larger relief but connected to the same area of land is pending before the learned Civil Court at Port Blair, this Court permits the parties to act strictly in terms of Sections 202(7) and 202(8) of the 1966 Regulation.

16. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 3/Tehsildar is restrained from taking steps under his order dated 22nd October, 2019 for a period of three months computed from 3rd October, 2019.

17. Further steps, if and as taken by the parties, shall be guided by the 1966 Regulation.

18. Liberty to mention before the appropriate Bench at the end of period of the interim order as granted above.