Dharam Raj Vs the Tehsildar — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Dharam Raj Vs the Tehsildar — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can challenge the Tehsildar's order dated 21st November, 2023 (impugned in this writ petition) when it merely implements the earlier order dated 29th March, 2023, which the petitioner did not challenge despite participating in the proceedings before the Tehsildar. +1 more

Court's answer

From the facts, the impugned order dated 21st November, 2023 is in the form of implementation of the earlier order dated 29th March, 2023 and was passed in pursuance of the direction of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner did not challenge the parent order of 29th March, 2023 despite participating in the proceeding before the Tehsildar, the petitioner cannot approach the Court now to seek stay of the later order impugned in these proceedings, namely the order of 21st November, 2023.

Key takeaways

The petitioner crossed the 45-day limitation period stipulated by Regulation 30(a) in May, 2023, whereas the present writ petition was filed in November, 2023.ratio¶22
The Court found no scope for interference and dismissed WPA/1027/2023 without any order as to costs.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA/1027/2023, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair; Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.; decided February 8, 2024) against the Tehsildar, Port Blair's order dated 21st November, 2023 directing removal of illegal occupation over the subject land bearing Survey No.5-A/1/7 situated at Haddo Village — dismissed. Held: (i) the impugned order is in the form of implementation of the earlier order dated 29th March, 2023 passed by the same authority pursuant to a High Court direction of 25th March, 2019 and to a Coordinate Bench order of 24th August, 2023 in the private respondent's writ petition directing implementation of the 29.03.2023 order; (ii) the petitioner did not challenge the parent order of 29th March, 2023 despite participating in the proceedings before the Tehsildar, and hence cannot seek stay of the later impugned order; (iii) statutory appeal lies under Regulation 29(1)(a) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 before the Sub Divisional Officer, subject to a 45-day limitation under Regulation 30(a); the petitioner crossed the limitation period in May, 2023 and filed the writ petition in November, 2023. Dismissed without any order as to costs.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/1027/2023

Dharam Raj

Vs.

The Tehsildar and another

Mr. K.Sabir … for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan … for the respondent Mr. A.Venkatesh … for the private respondent

February 8, 2024 [SR] Item No.4

The petitioner seeks setting aside of an order passed by the Tehsildar, Port Blair dated 21^st November, 2023. By the said order, the Tehsildar directed the ‘private respondent’ (writ petitioner before this Court) to remove the illegal occupation over the subject land bearing Survey No.5-A/1/7 situated at Haddo Village.

The Tehsildar also found that the said land was recorded in favour of the ‘writ petitioner’ before the Tehsildar (the private respondent herein).

The impugned order has a back-story. There was an earlier order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, Port Blair pursuant to an order passed by the High Court on 25^th March, 2019 directing the Tehsildar to pass a final order after giving appropriate notice to the private respondents and the writ petitioner. The private respondent is the writ petitioner in the present proceedings.

By this order, the Tehsildar directed the petitioner to remove the illegal occupation committed over the survey no.5A/1/7 situated at Haddo which was found to be recorded in

2

favour of the private respondent before this Court. The petitioner was to remove the illegal construction by 2^nd April, 2023. This order indicates that the petitioner was heard before the Tehsildar.

The impugned order dated 21^st November, 2023, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is a virtual reproduction of the earlier order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the same authority. The Court has also seen the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 24^th August, 2023 in the writ petition filed by the private respondent whereby the Tehsildar was directed to take steps for implementing the order dated 29^th March, 2023, upon giving the opportunity to private respondent (petitioner before this Court) to remove the illegal occupation over the subject land. The Court also found that a Title Suit relied upon by the writ petitioner before that Court, was unconnected with the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the private respondent.

From the above facts, it is clear that the impugned order is on the form of implementation of the earlier order dated 29^th March, 2023 and was passed in pursuance of the direction of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Significantly, the petitioner did not challenge the parent order of 29^th March, 2023, despite participating in the proceeding before the Tehsildar. Hence, the petitioner cannot approach the Court now to seek stay of the later order impugned in this proceedings, namely the order of 21^st November, 2023,

3

Regulation 29(1)(a) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 provides for an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. Regulation 30(a) however stipulates a limitation period of 45 days from the date of the order appealed against.

In the present case, the petitioner crossed the limitation period in May, 2023. The present writ petition was filed in November, 2023.

This Court hence finds no scope for interference. WPA/1027/2023 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )