R.Stephen Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

R.Stephen Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

WPA/1/2024 disposed of by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure P-5; concerned authority/Sub Division Officer to reconsider with a fresh hearing to the petitioner and other relevant parties, considering documents including a Coordinate Bench decision; Tehsildar, Port Blair to improve its report if called upon.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a No Dues Certificate and Non-Encumbrance Certificate to permit sale of his share of the land, and on what basis the authority rejected the claim despite dues being paid upto 2023.

Court's answer

The Court could not comprehend the basis for rejecting the petitioner's prayer; the impugned decision was not clarified by the report, and it was not clear why the petitioner was required to submit documents including a sketch map to sell only his share of the land.

Ratio / Principle

The concerned authority/Sub Division Officer should reconsider the order in light of the procedure by which the land was purchased and thereafter transferred by the petitioner's father to the petitioner, and shall give a fresh hearing to the petitioner and other relevant parties upon considering such documents including the decision passed by a Coordinate Bench pertaining to the nature of the present dispute.

Key takeaways

The Tehsildar, Port Blair shall improve upon the report by clarifying the issue in dispute if called upon to do so by the concerned authority.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA/1/2024), High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, decided 01.02.2024 by Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.: The petitioner, whose land was jointly recorded with his brother and ten others (individuals not named in the Record of Rights), sought a No Dues Certificate and Non-Encumbrance Certificate to sell his share; the Tehsildar, Port Blair's report, though noting all dues paid upto 2023, rejected the claim using inapplicable legal expressions ('axiomatic' issues) without clarifying the impugned decision or the demand for documents including a sketch map. Holding the basis of rejection incomprehensible, the Court disposed of WPA/1/2024 by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure P-5, directing the concerned authority/Sub Division Officer to reconsider the order in light of the procedure by which the petitioner's father, S. Ramanathan, purchased the land and transferred it to the petitioner, with a fresh hearing to the petitioner and other relevant parties upon considering such documents including a Coordinate Bench decision on the same dispute; the Tehsildar was directed to improve the report by clarifying the disputed issue if called upon.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] * WPA/1/2024**

R. Stephen

Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others

Ms. G.Mini … for the petitioner Mr.V.D.Sivabalan … for the Administration

February 1, 2024 [SR]

Item No.10

The report of the Tehsildar, Port Blair is full of legal expressions which do not have any application to the context in which the expressions are used. The authority finds several issues to be “axiomatic” while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for a No Dues Certificate and Non-Encumbrance Certificate. The Court however fails to comprehend the basis for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer.

The only fact which appears from the report is that the land was jointly recorded in favour of the petitioner, his brother and 10 others and the individuals are not mentioned in the Record of Rights.

The report, however, states that all dues have been paid by the petitioner, his brother and 10 others upto 2023.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father, S. Ramanathan, had purchased the concerned plot of the land and that the subject plot of land was inherited by the petitioner after his father’s death. Counsel submits that there cannot be any embargo on the petitioner selling the land to a third party since the same procedure had been adopted when the petitioner’s father purchased the land from a third party.

2

The report does not clarify the impugned decision which is under challenge. It is also not clear from the impugned order as to why the petitioner would be called upon to submit these documents including a sketch map for permitting the petitioner to sell only the petitioner’s share of the land.

Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the concerned authority /Sub Division Officer should reconsider the order in light of the procedure by which the land was purchased and thereafter transferred by the petitioner’s father to the petitioner. The authorities shall give a fresh hearing to the petitioner and other relevant parties upon considering such documents including the decision passed by a Coordinate Bench which pertain to the nature of the present dispute.

WPA/1/2024 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure P-5 of the writ petition.

The Tehsildar, Port Blair, shall improve upon the report by clarifying the issue in dispute if called upon to do so by the concerned authority.

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

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. )