Disposed¶22

Shri. Sukharanjan Halder v. the Lt.Governor and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Feb 2026WPA/304/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sukharanjan Halder v. The Lt. Governor and Others; WPA/304/2025; record of rights correction; insertion of petitioner's father's name as tenant; allotment conditions compliance; physical inspection permitted; cogent recorded reasons required for refusal; twelve-week completion deadline; Port Blair circuit bench; disposed February 03, 2026; Arijit Banerjee, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondent authorities to correct the record of rights by inserting the petitioner's father's name as tenant upon satisfaction of the allotment conditions, to record cogent reasons for any refusal, and to complete the exercise within twelve weeks of communication of the order. ¶22

Shri. Sukharanjan Halder Vs the Lt.Governor and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities should correct the record of rights by inserting the petitioner's father's name as tenant of the concerned plot of land, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of the allotment.

¶16

Court's answer

The extract from the record of rights (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) clearly shows the petitioner's father to be a tenant of the concerned land, though the document could not be located in the original records.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Learned advocate for the respondents fairly admitted, to the Court's query, that the fact of allotment of land to the petitioner's father is not disputed.

¶15

Key takeaways

If the allottee or his legal heirs satisfy the respondent authorities that they have complied with the conditions of the allotment and have not acted in breach of any such condition, the authorities should correct the record of rights by inserting the petitioner's father's name as tenant of the concerned plot, with liberty to carry out physical inspection of the property.ratio¶18
If the respondent authorities decline the petitioner's request for correction of the records of rights, cogent reason for such refusal must be recorded by them.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPA/304/2025, High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), decided February 03, 2026 by Arijit Banerjee, J. The extract from the record of rights annexed to the writ petition (Annexure P-2) showed the petitioner's father to be a tenant of the concerned land, though the original document could not be located in the records; counsel for the respondents admitted that allotment of the land to the petitioner's father was not disputed. The Court directed that if the allottee or his legal heirs satisfy the respondent authorities of compliance with the conditions of allotment without breach, the authorities should correct the record of rights by inserting the father's name as tenant of the plot, with liberty to carry out physical inspection; any refusal must be supported by cogent reasons recorded; the authorities were expected to act with fairness and allow the request unless compelling reasons recorded in writing precluded it; the entire exercise to be completed within twelve weeks of communication of the order. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

¶4

WPA/304/2025

¶5

Shri. Sukharanjan Halder

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Lt. Governor and Others

¶8

Mr. Ananda Halder …. for the petitioner

¶9

Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents

¶10

February 03, 2026 [SR] Item No.21

¶11

Read order dated January 28, 2026.

¶12

Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the

¶13

respondents.

¶14

The extract from the record of rights, xerox copy whereof is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, clearly shows the petitioner’s father to be a tenant of the concerned land. However, this document could not be located in the original records. The petitioner says that the factum of allotment of land to his father is not in dispute.

¶15

To my query, learned advocate for the respondents fairly admits that the fact of allotment of land to the petitioner’s father is not disputed.

¶16

If that be so and if the allottee or his legal heirs satisfy the concerned respondent authorities that they have complied with the conditions of the allotment and have not acted in breach of any of such conditions, then, the respondent authorities should correct the record of rights by inserting the

¶17

¶18

name of the petitioner’s father as the tenant of the concerned plot of land. For this purpose, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to carry out physical inspection of the property in question.

¶19

In the event the respondent authorities decline the petitioner’s request for correction of records of rights by incorporating his father’s name, cogent reason for such refusal must be recorded by the respondent authorities.

¶20

I trust and hope that the respondent authorities, being public authorities, shall act with fairness and responsibility and shall allow the petitioner’s request unless for compelling reason to be recorded in writing, the request cannot be acceded to.

¶21

The entire exercise shall be carried out within twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner or his learned advocate to the concerned officer in the Administration.

¶22

WPA/304/2025 is disposed of.

¶23

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )

Shri. Sukharanjan Halder v. the Lt.Governor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sukharanjan Halder v. the Lt.Governor and Ors.

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

Smti. Majda Begum Vs the Branch Manager

Smti.v.Pandi Selvi and Ors. Vs Smti. S.S.Devi and Ors.

M/S Siddhartha Resort and Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smti.Sumitra Mondal and Ors.

Shri. Sandeep Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Shri P Kumar Vs the Superintendent and Others

U Nasar Khan Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.