Disposed¶28

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Nov 2025WPA/87/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

land allotment; North Bay; pearl culture research; South Andaman District; Deputy Commissioner rejection; res judicata; maintainability of writ petition; Secretary (Revenue) appellate authority; Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reform Rules 1968 Rules 146(ii) 164(iv) 164(v); Vision 2030 pearl culture employment; sea area licence; Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd.; WPA Port Blair Circuit Bench; Shampa Sarkar J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary (Revenue), the appellate authority, to decide the entire issue by treating the writ petition as the petitioner's appeal, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his representative, within two months from communication of the order; the Court did not itself decide the petitioner's eligibility. ¶28

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, as an individual, is eligible to be granted allotment of land at North Bay for his pearl culture research project. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned decision does not take into consideration the aspects urged before the Court, including that the sea area licence had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Administration.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The contention of res judicata raised on behalf of the respondents is not accepted, as the petitioner's eligibility was never considered in the earlier round of litigation.

¶21

Key takeaways

The eligibility policy relied upon by the authorities applies to allotment of land to Central Government Departments, Ministry of Defence, PRIs, Municipality etc., and does not specifically deal with pearl culture.ratio¶14
The order of the Deputy Commissioner is cryptic, lacking in material particulars, and suffers from non-consideration of various rules and regulations.ratio¶23
The Administration's Vision 2030 indicates that it has envisaged pearl culture activities for generation of employment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA/87/2025, Circuit Bench at Port Blair) disposed of with direction — Rejection by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District (November 27, 2024) of the petitioner's request for allotment of land at North Bay, adjacent to survey no.153/1/P/5, for pearl culture research held cryptic, lacking in material particulars and suffering from non-consideration of various rules and regulations; plea of res judicata founded on earlier Division Bench proceedings (upholding cancellation of the licence of Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd.) rejected, as the petitioner's eligibility was never considered in the earlier round; the eligibility policy relied on by the authorities applies to Central Government Departments, Ministry of Defence, PRIs, Municipality etc. and does not specifically deal with pearl culture; Secretary (Revenue), the appellate authority, directed to decide the entire issue treating the writ petition as the petitioner's appeal, after hearing, within two months; the Court expressly did not decide the petitioner's eligibility.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶4

¶5

WPA/87/2025

¶6

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Union of India and others

¶9

Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar … for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan … for the respondents

¶10

November 03, 2025 [SR] Item No. 24

¶11

The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District dated November 27, 2024, by which the petitioner’s request for allotment of land at North Bay, adjacent to survey no.153/1/P/5, was rejected. When the petitioner was the Director of Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd , some land was allotted at North Bay for pearl culture. The petitioner ceased to be a director. The licence was cancelled by the authority. The cancellation of the licence granted to Pearlescent Meritech Pvt. Ltd ,was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶12

However, the petitioner who appeared in the appeal proceedings was heard, but the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to his eligibility or competence to be allotted a land for his research project was not decided by the Division Bench, and the issue was left open. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for allotment of the land and the said application was rejected only on the ground that as an individual, the petitioner was not eligible to be granted the land allotment.

¶13

¶14

The eligibility policy relied upon by the authorities applies to allotment of land to the Departments of Central Government, Ministry of Defence, PRIs, Municipality etc. The said policy does not specifically deal with pearl culture. The petitioner needs to establish a laboratory on the land, to pursue research in pearl culture. The sea licence has already been granted to the petitioner, adjacent to the land at North Bay.

¶15

It also appears that the Joint Director of Fisheries issued a press note inviting interested parties to submit application along with all required documents to the Directorate of Fisheries, Sri Vijaya Puram, Zonal Fisheries Office. It is contended by the petitioner that although the sea area has been allotted for pearl culture, but the petitioner who has been involved in sustainable pearl culture for many years and has been recognized as an expert in the field, requires a land area to develop the pearls. The petitioner is engaged in both off-shore and on-shore activities.

¶16

The decision impugned does not take into consideration any of such aspects urged before me, specially that, sea area licence had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Administration. The question is whether there is a total ban on any kind of activity with regard to pearl culture, on the land.

¶17

Reference is further made to Rule 146 (ii), 164(iv) & (v) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reform Rules, 1968.

¶18

Although pearl culture has not been mentioned as a prescribed purpose in the rules, the petitioner relies upon the Administration’s seven years strategy 2017-2024 and vision

¶19

¶20

upto 2030, in which promotion of pearl culture for generation of employment is one of the visions. The reputation of the petitioner as an expert in the filed is not in doubt.

¶21

Mr. V.D.Sivabalan submits that the writ petition is not maintainable before this forum and further submits that the Division Bench has already decided the right of the petitioner to be allotted the land area. The land policy 2013 does not support the case of the petitioner. The contention of Mr. V.D.Sivabalan with regard to the issue of res judicata is not accepted. The petitioner’s eligibility was never considered in the earlier round of litigation. The land allotment policy 2013 was not considered in detail in the order impugned.

¶22

Moreover, the vision of 2030 clearly indicates that the Administration has envisaged pearl culture activities for generation of employment.

¶23

The order of the Deputy Commissioner is a cryptic one, lacking in material particulars and suffers from nonconsideration of various rules, and regulations in this regard.

¶24

Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Secretary (Revenue) who is also the appellate authority to decide the entire issue, by treating the writ petition as the appeal of the petitioner, upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his representative.

¶25

The decision shall be taken by the concerned appellate authority within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶26

¶27

This Court has not decided the eligibility of the petitioner, but specifically directs the Secretary (Revenue) to decide the issue on the basis of all the documents and the past records of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order

¶30

downloaded from the website of this Hon’ble Court.

¶31

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Karuppaiah and Anr. Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Others

Miss. Chandana Sarkar Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Shri. S. Sudeshnan Vs the Secretary, Port Blair Municipal Council and Ors.

Smti.Kurdulla Minj Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

R Mohan Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

M Devi Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.