Disposed¶17

Satyaban Paul v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and 4 Others

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2024WPA/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

eviction; due process; natural justice; opportunity of hearing; encroachment; government revenue land; Diglipur; Tehsildar; Assistant Commissioner; unanswered representation; thirty five years occupation; interim restraint on eviction; Andaman and Nicobar Administration; WPA; Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench Port Blair.

What did the court decide?

Direction on respondent no.3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within eight weeks; no eviction or other penal measures till three weeks from communication of the reasoned order; opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the reasoned decision. ¶17

Satyaban Paul Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and 4 Others — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities can evict the petitioner from the land in question without due process of law and without an opportunity to prove his right to remain on the land.

¶13

Court's answer

Respondent no.3 should first respond to the petitioner's representation before any action of eviction is taken against him.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.3 directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

¶17

Key takeaways

Respondent authorities shall not take eviction or any other penal measures against the petitioner till three weeks from the date the reasoned order is communicated to him.ratio¶18
Respondent no.3 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before arriving at the reasoned decision.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA/13/2024, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by Satyaban Paul seeking restraint on the Andaman and Nicobar Administration from evicting him from land without due process of law. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar, Diglipur was bent on evicting him without an opportunity to prove his right to remain; respondents contended the land belongs to the Government revenue department and the petitioner had illegally encroached. The record showed an unanswered representation dated 14th November, 2023 to the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur (respondent no.3) regarding Government revenue land the petitioner claims to have occupied for more than thirty five years. Balancing the equities, the Court held that respondent no.3 should first respond to the representation before any eviction action, directed disposal of the representation within eight weeks with an opportunity of hearing, and restrained eviction or other penal measures till three weeks after communication of the reasoned order. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/13/2024

Satyaban Paul

Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others

¶9

Mr. KMB Jayapal … for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan … for the respondents

February 5, 2024

[SR]

Item No.17

The petitioner prays for a restraint on the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from the land without due process of law. Although the writ petition does not disclose any documents articulating such process or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar, Diglipur is bent on evicting the petitioner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to prove his right to remain on the land in question.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the land in question belongs to the Government revenue department and the petitioner has illegally encroached on the said land. It, however, appears from record that the petitioner has made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur on 14^th November, 2023 praying for intervention of the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the Government revenue land which the petitioner has occupied for more than thirty five years. Admittedly the Assistant Commissioner/respondent no.3 has not responded to the representation.

¶15

¶16

Considering the balancing of equities, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.3 should first respond to the representation before any action of eviction is taken against the petitioner.

¶17

WPA/13/2024 is accordingly disposed of with a direction on the respondent no.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks from today.

¶18

The respondent authorities shall not take any action against the petitioner in the form of eviction or any other penal measures till three weeks from the date the reasoned order is communicated to the petitioner. The respondent no.3 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before arriving at the reasoned decision.

¶19

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

¶20

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )

Satyaban Paul v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyaban Paul v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishen Prasad Tiwari Vs the Tehsildar and Anr.

R. Poon Kodi Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

M/S Vdr Resortel Pvt. Ltd.. Vs the Branch Manager

M.Jagannathan Vs Vedita Reddy

Mukkaiah Vs Vedita Reddy

Dulal Paul Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others