Remanded

Smti. Laxmi Kumari Mondal v. the Deputy Commissioner

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2024WPA/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a stay order stopping construction activities. The court held the order unsustainable as authorities remained silent on the diversion application for almost two years. It directed disposal within six weeks and stayed the stop-work order.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's representation within six weeks; stay on stay order until decision communicated.

Smti. Laxmi Kumari Mondal Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶3

¶4

WPA/47/2024

¶5

Smt Laxmi Kumari Mondal

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner

¶8

Mr. Ananda Halder … for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan … for the respondent

¶9

February 5, 2024 [SR] Item No.7

¶10

The petitioner prays for a direction on the respondents, Deputy Commissioner, Sub Divisional Officer and the Tehsildar, South Andaman District to consider an application made by the petitioner for diversion of land on 20^th January, 2022. The petitioner also prays for stay of an order passed by the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj on 22^nd December, 2023 with a direction on the petitioner to stop the construction activities with immediate effect.

¶11

It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the parties that the petitioner is admittedly the recorded tenant of the areas of land bearing Survey Nos.93 and 94. The petitioner applied in the prescribed format under Rule 4A of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 for permitting the petitioner to divert the land for the purpose of making a construction for residential purposes. The authorities/Sub Divisional Officer, South Andaman District, however, sat over the representation and remained silent from 20^th January, 2022 till 22^nd December, 2023 i.e. almost for two years.

¶12

¶13

The Tehsildar, Ferrargunj proceeded to pass the impugned stay order dated 22^nd December, 2023 directing the petitioner to immediately stop construction activities on the site on the ground that the construction being allegedly in violation of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968.

¶14

The report of the Assistant Commissioner, South Andaman District records the application made by the petitioner and admits that all diversion cases including the case of the petitioner have been kept pending “for finalization of policy decision”. The report finds that the petitioner had illegally diverted the land by constructing a building.

¶15

On considering the facts brought to the notice of this Court, the Court is of the view that the impugned stay order issued to the petitioner for stopping construction activities cannot be sustained when the authorities chose to remain quiet for almost two years without disposing of the petitioner’s representation. This fact is duly admitted in the report filed by the authorities on 30^th January, 2024. The authorities should have first disposed of the representation by giving clear reasons on the alleged illegal nature of construction and only thereafter proceeded to take necessary steps in accordance with law. In the absence of aforesaid, the stay order must be interfered with.

¶16

WPA/47/2024 is accordingly disposed of with a direction on the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20^th January, 2022 within a period of six weeks from today. The stay order

¶17

¶18

dated 22^nd December, 2023 shall remain stayed until four weeks from the date on which the decision of the authority on the representation is communicated to the petitioner.

¶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. )

Smti. Laxmi Kumari Mondal v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Laxmi Kumari Mondal v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Satyaban Paul Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and 4 Others