IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1003/2023 Rajeshwari Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal … for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar … for the respondents July 10, 2026 [AKB] Item No.28 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated October 24, 2016 passed in RC No. 2686/TPB/2016 by the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, Port Blair whereby the Tehsildar has unconditionally accepted “surrender of land measuring area 49 Sq.mtrs. out of Sy. No. 82/2/3 out of total area 749 Sq.mtrs. situated at Nayagaon village under Port Blair Tehsil for the purpose of road/path” by one Shri Ram Chander and three others. 2. The petitioner claims to be the wife of one Ram Chander (since deceased) who was a recorded tenant of Abadi Land as indicated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It has been alleged that the impugned order was served upon the petitioner only on November 14, 2023 and that the petitioner’s husband had never surrendered the said land as recorded in the impugned order. 3. Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition had been filed along 2 with three other writ petitions filed by persons who were similarly aggrieved by the order dated October 24, 2016. 4. He invites the attention of this Court to an order dated March 13, 2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in one of the said three writ petitions being WPA/1002/2023 on March 13, 2025 and submits that on a writ petition filed by one of the persons adversely affected by the order dated October 24, 2016 passed by the Tehsildar in RC No. 2686/TPC/2016 (i.e. the same order by which the petitioner is aggrieved), the Coordinate Bench had set aside the impugned order. 5. He invites the attention of this Court to annexure P-1 of the writ petition which is the record of holding register to demonstrate that the name of the petitioner’s husband (i.e. Late Ram Chander) is appearing in the record of rights. He demonstrates that the first name mentioned in the impugned order is that of the petitioner’s husband only [i.e. Ram Chander (since deceased)]. 6. The order dated March 13, 2025 passed in WPA 1002/2023 records as follows:- “1. The order of the Tehsildar dated 24th October, 2016 in which it is recorded that Shri Ram Chander and three others had applied for surrender and based on that the Tehsildar accepted the said offer unconditionally is being challenged in the writ petition. 2. An affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the respondent authorities disclosing certain reports. However, the applications claimed to have been filed by the petitioners for voluntarily surrendering the land for the purpose of roads/pathway has not been disclosed. 3. The regulation provides that it has to be on basis of the application for surrender. In fact the order of the Tehsildar had also recorded that “the petitioners had applied for surrender of land”. In absence of any 3 application being disclosed, I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. The order of the Tehsildar dated 24th October, 2016 is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. Learned counsel for the Administration has submitted that the original record is not traceable. In the event, it is subsequently found out that the applications were in fact filed on which the Administration had acted upon, liberty is given to the Administration to file application for recalling of this order and on a satisfaction being recorded that the application in fact was filed, the court may initiate proceeding against the present writ petitioner. 6. Accordingly, WPA/1002/2023 stands disposed of.” 7. The present case, is absolutely similar to the one that was before this Court in WPA/1002/2023. 8. In the present case as well, the affidavit-in-opposition that has been filed on behalf of the respondent authorities discloses a report that has been prepared by the Patwari Circle No. 08 which in its concluding portion reads thus: “Further revenue record reveals that no surrender of land for an area 49 Sq.mtrs. out of 749 Sq.mtrs. in Sy. No. 82/2/3 at Nayagaon village is recorded.” 9. Furthermore, the copy of the letter dated September 25, 2024 (annexed as annexure R3 to the affidavit-in-opposition) written by the Tehsildar to the Station House Officer reveals that “Office Circular dated March 4, 2024 vide a No. GEN/TPB/2024/396 has been issued by the undersigned to trace out the file being R.C. No. 2686/TPB/2016 in connection with surrender of land of Ram Chander and Others in respect of land bearing survey No. 82/2/3 area 749 Sq.mtrs. situated at 4 Nayagaon village but the same could not be traced out by his office inspite of putting all efforts”. 10. In such view of the matter, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the petitioner’s husband voluntarily surrendered the land for the purpose of road/pathway. 11. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents (especially paragraph 3 thereof) reveals that the petitioner’s assertion that the petitioner is the wife of Ram Chander (since deceased), who is alleged to have made the application for surrender is not in dispute. 12. As already recorded by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated March 13, 2025 the relevant regulation provides that any surrender of land has to be on the basis of an application therefor. The order of the Tehsildar also records that the surrender has been made on the basis of an application. However, there is neither any application nor any record of such surrender. 13. Mr. Sivabalan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submit that the order dated March 13, 2025 has not been appealed against. In such view of the matter, the same should apply in the present case as well. 14. Since a Coordinate Bench has already set aside the order dated October 24, 2026 on the application made by another aggrieved person inter alia on the ground that there is no application of surrender on record, and this case is absolutely similar to that case, there is no reason for this Court to take a divergent course. 5 15. Accordingly, the order dated October 24, 2016 is set aside as against the petitioner. 16. As recorded in the Coordinate Bench’s order dated March 13, 2025, it is recorded in this case as well that in the event it is subsequently found that applications for surrender were in fact filed and that the administration had acted upon such application, then liberty will be there for the administration to file appropriate application seeking recalling of this order and in such case if this Court is satisfied that such application was in fact filed, this Court may initiate appropriate proceeding against the writ petitioner herein. 17. Accordingly, WPA/1003/2023 stands disposed of. No costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)