Disposed¶19

Shri.Gobinda Biswas v. the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Calcutta HC9 Jan 2026WPA/6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA/6/2026; Port Blair Circuit Bench; Arindam Mukherjee, J.; partition suit Other Suit No.17 of 2015; preliminary decree 28 December 2018; final decree; sub-division application before Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman; Citizen Charter 90-day disposal mandate; writ direction for time-bound disposal by 28 February 2026; personal hearing; reasoned order; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 to dispose of the petitioner's application for sub-division of the land as expeditiously as possible and not beyond 28 February 2026, with a personal hearing if necessary, opportunity to produce documents, a reasoned order answering all issues, and immediate communication of the order to the petitioner. ¶19

Shri.Gobinda Biswas Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.1 (Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman) should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending application for sub-division of the suit property in terms of the final decree in the partition suit, within a stipulated time. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application for sub-division of the land as expeditiously as possible but not beyond 28 February 2026; if necessary he shall give the petitioner a personal hearing, allow him to produce documents beyond those already submitted, pass a reasoned order answering all issues falling for consideration, and communicate the order immediately to the petitioner.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Bench has not gone into the merits of the case; respondent no.1 shall decide the issue independently without being influenced in any manner by any observations made in the order.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA/6/2026, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, Arindam Mukherjee, J., decided 9 January 2026) — Partition suit Other Suit No.17 of 2015 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), North and Middle Andaman — preliminary decree dated 28 December 2018 declaring shares, followed by final decree in terms of the partition Commissioner's accepted report — petitioner's application to the Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman for sub-division of the suit property in terms of the final decree pending despite the Citizen Charter mandating disposal within 90 days — held, writ disposed of directing respondent no.1 to decide the sub-division application as expeditiously as possible and not beyond 28 February 2026, giving the petitioner a personal hearing if necessary, allowing production of further documents, passing a reasoned order answering all issues and communicating it immediately — Court expressly did not go into the merits and left respondent no.1 to decide independently.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/6/2026

Shri Gobinda Biswas

Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and another

¶9

Mr. Pardeshia Munda … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents

¶10

January 9, 2026 [SR] Item No.3

¶11

The petitioner is the plaintiff in a partition suit being Other Suit No.17 of 2015 which was filed before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), North and Middle Andaman.

¶12

In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 28^th December, 2018 declaring the shares of the parties to the suit which was followed by a report filed by the Commissioner of partition. The report was accepted and a final decre in terms of such report has also been passed.

¶13

The petitioner had made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, North and Middle Andaman (Respondent no.1) for sub-division of the property in accordance with the final decree passed in the partition suit.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that, despite lapse of a considerable period of time, the respondent no.1 has not decided the matter though he is mandated to dispose of the said application within 90 days from the date of receipt of the same under the provisions of the Citizen Charter issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner says that after a final decree has been passed which remains unchallenged till date, there is no embargo on the Deputy

¶15

¶16

Commissioner (respondent no.1) in carrying out the subdivision, as prayed for.

¶17

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application for sub-division of the land as expeditiously as possible but not beyond 28^th February, 2026. The respondent no.1 shall, after considering the application, if necessary, give the petitioner a personal hearing and allowing him to produce the documents apart from those already submitted for effectively deciding the issue. The respondent no.1 shall pass a reasoned order and answer all the issues that may fall consideration and communicate the order immediately to the petitioner on the same having been passed.

¶18

It is made clear that this Bench has not gone into the merits of the case and the respondent no.1 shall decide the issue independently without being influenced in any manner by any observations made in this order.

¶19

WPA/6/2026 stands disposed of.

¶20

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

Shri.Gobinda Biswas v. the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Gobinda Biswas v. the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

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

Shri.Tarapada Roy Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Shri. Subal Roy Vs the Director of Agriculture and Anr.

Saraswathi Halder Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Shri.Bidhan Chandra Dakuya Vs Smti. Kanika Baidya and Anr.

Shri.Rajib Hossain Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Jagannath Sil Vs the State