JUDGMENT : RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J. 1. Both these appeals raise common questions of law and fact and arise out of an order dated 28 March 2024. 2. The respondent no.1 company had filed this petition seeking compensation in respect of alleged losses and damages suffered during Tsunami. The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:- (i) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them to dispose of application filed on 7th March 2018 by disbursing compensation alongwith interest in terms of order dated June 9, 2017 passed in WP No.328 of 20145; (ii) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent no.4 to consider the application filed on 7th March, 2018 in terms of the aforesaid order dated June 9, 2017 in WP No.328 of 2015; (iii) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents to certify and transmit this Hon’ble Court to records of the case so that conscionable justice be rendered; (iv) Rule NISI in terms prayers (a) and (b); (v) Appropriate order and/or directions be passed directing respondents to disburse the balance compensation of Rs.11,09,20,614/- (Rupees eleven crores nine lacs twenty thousand six hundred and fourteen only) with interest till the date of payment to the petitioners within such time and/or on such terms as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances; (vi) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above; (vii) Pass such further order or orders and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 3. Briefly, a claim for Tsunami compensation has been filed by the respondent no.1, inter-alia under a Circular dated 30 July 2012 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. For convenience, the Circular is set out below:- “F.No.U-13018/1/2010-ANL Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya New Delhi, dated the 30th July, 2012 To The Chief Secretary, A & N Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair. Sub: Payment of compensation in lieu of land submerged during Tsunami of 2004 in Andaman & Nicobar Islands. For convenience, the Circular is set out below:- “F.No.U-13018/1/2010-ANL Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya New Delhi, dated the 30th July, 2012 To The Chief Secretary, A & N Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair. Sub: Payment of compensation in lieu of land submerged during Tsunami of 2004 in Andaman & Nicobar Islands. *** Sir I am directed to refer to A&N Administration’s letter No.37-83/2012-Rev dated 25 th April 2012 on the above subject and to convey the approval of the competent authority for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.106.73 crore (Rupees one hundred six crore and seventy three lakh only) to such affected persons whose land submerged in Tsunami of 2004 and who have given specific option to get compensation in cash in lieu of their submerged land. 2. The payment will be made @ Rs.9,39,000/- per hectare in respect of 1136.44 hectare of submerged land for which specific options from their owners have been received by the UT Administration for payment of compensation in cash in lieu of the submerged land. 3. The payment of compensation will be made by the UT Administration only after ensuring availability of funds through Supplementary Grants proposal for which is stated to have been made, as noted by EFC in Para 11 (iii) of the minutes of its meeting held on 27-06-2012. 4. Before making compensation, UT Administration will further ensure that; (i) The beneficiaries who get compensation in lieu of submerged land, surrender the land for which compensation is paid; and (ii) the persons who have claimed compensation have not encroached any Government/forest land in any of the Islands under the A & N Islands. 5. The expenditure will be debited to Major Head 2245 – Relief on account of Natural Calamities (Plan) 101.03 Relief Package to Tsunami affected farmers, 03.00.50 Other Charges (Plan) for the year. 6. This issues with the approval of IFD(H) vie their Dy.No.1091/12/AFA(Pers) dated 30-07-2012. (emphasis added) Yours faithfully Sd/- (M.L.Varma) Director (ANL) Tele:23094376” 4. The area of land in respect of which the petitioner is alleged to have suffered damages measures 54.85 hectares. It is contended that on 10 January 1956, different grants of land for a period of 30 years with effect from 1 January 1955 and an option for renewal for like duration had been issued by the appellant Administration. The area of land in respect of which the petitioner is alleged to have suffered damages measures 54.85 hectares. It is contended that on 10 January 1956, different grants of land for a period of 30 years with effect from 1 January 1955 and an option for renewal for like duration had been issued by the appellant Administration. The above grants were issued under Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation 1926. The particulars of the above grants aggregating to 1360 acres are set out hereinbelow:- 5. Subsequently, on 9 April 1987 a renewal of the above premises was granted under Regulation 146 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 for a further period of 30 years commencing from 1 January 1985 which categorically provided that no further renewal would be made by the appellant Administration. Admittedly, the period of 30 years under the grant dated 9 April 1987 came to an end on 1 October 2015. It is alleged that the above grants had been subsequently assigned in favour of the respondent no.1 company. 6. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has remanded the matter for assessment of compensation to the appellant Administration and directed disposal of the same within a fixed time period. However, in directing disposal of the above application, the Learned Single Judge has specifically directed the appellant Administration not to consider the following: – (i) Whether the writ petitioner is the owner of the land? It is to assume that there are the owners. (ii) Whether the writ petitioner as a large plantation owning company is eligible for compensation? They are to assume that they are eligible to receive compensation. (iii) Whether on expiry of the grant the writ petitioner is eligible to receive compensation? It is to assume that the writ petitioner is eligible to receive compensation, as grantee on the date of the Tsunami, on the footing that they had suffered loss and damage at that time. (iv) The Administration will not go into the question whether the writ petitioner is in a position to deliver possession of the land to the Administration. It is to assume that the writ petitioner is in possession of the land and is in a position to deliver its possession to the Administration. 7. There has been a spate of litigation between the parties. It is to assume that the writ petitioner is in possession of the land and is in a position to deliver its possession to the Administration. 7. There has been a spate of litigation between the parties. Initially, the respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition being WP/1034/2010, inter alia challenging the damages assessed by the appellant Administration. By an order dated 30 July 2012, the appellant Administration was directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,67,900/- as ex-gratia payment to the respondent no. 1 company. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30 July 2012, an appeal had also been preferred by the appellant Administration which was dismissed ex parte on merits affirming the order dated 30 July 2012. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 company had filed two separate writ petitions which were disposed of by a common order dated 9 June 2017 directing the appellant Administration to reassess the claim for compensation and dispose of the same within three months from the date of communication of the order. Pursuant to the order dated 9 June 2017, the respondent no. 1 company has filed this petition inter alia complaining of non-disposal of an application dated 7 March 2018 for compensation filed with the appellant Administration. 8. It is contended on the behalf of the appellant Administration that the impugned order restricts the rights of the Administration in deciding the question of compensation. None of the pre-requisites for being entitled to compensation have been complied with by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 is not an owner of the land. The respondent no.1 is also not in a position to surrender the land. Additionally, in view of the 1926 and 1966 Regulations which strictly prohibit any transfer or subletting without the permission of the Chief Commissioner in writing, no transfer of any of the above lands could have been made in favour of the respondent no.1 company. It is further contended that, post 1 January 2015 the respondent no.1 has become an unauthorized occupant or encroacher of the entirety of the above land. There is also no scope to ascertain whether the respondent no.1 is entitled to any compensation or whether the respondent no.1 had suffered any losses or damages during Tsunami. The question of compensation against submerged land or encroachment is also not to be adjudicated upon. There is also no scope to ascertain whether the respondent no.1 is entitled to any compensation or whether the respondent no.1 had suffered any losses or damages during Tsunami. The question of compensation against submerged land or encroachment is also not to be adjudicated upon. In effect, by the impugned order, the only option left for the appellant Administration is to award compensation which makes the entire decision making process a clerical job. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that a connected appeal being MAT No. 31 of 2024 has been filed against the impugned order seeking directions for payment of the entire compensation of Rs.11,09,20,614/-. It is alleged that there are no other issues left to be adjudicated upon and that the Learned Judge erred in not directing payment of compensation. On a combined reading of the various orders passed in the earlier proceedings, all issues have been finally and conclusively adjudicated upon and nothing remains to be decided. In such circumstances, the respondents are entitled to the entire claim of compensation i.e. Rs.5,00,67,480/- alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a. on and from 30 July 2012 and the Learned Judge erred in not awarding the same. 10. The relief sought for by the respondent no.1 is for compensation. It is true that in certain exceptional cases, a Court may in cases of an established infringement of indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution award damages. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be treated as if it was being awarded in a civil action for damages under private law but in a broader sense of providing relief by an order for making monetary amends under public law for the wrong done for breach of a public duty of not protecting the fundamental rights of a citizen. Certain illustrations where damages have been awarded are for custodial interrogation, torture, illegal detention, gross negligence causing death. (D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178 , Rajemder Singh Pathania vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 329 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others, (2011) 14 SCC 481 ). 11. (D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178 , Rajemder Singh Pathania vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 329 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others, (2011) 14 SCC 481 ). 11. Nevertheless, it does not follow as a natural corollary that a Writ Court is equipped and would readily enter into the arena of awarding damages. This exercise is ordinarily not undertaken by the Writ Court for the reason that it inevitably entails a factual enquiry to establish the necessary pre-conditions before awarding damages, if any, suffered by any claimant. To do otherwise, may also open the floodgates for false claims in order to mulct money from the State. (Arunangshu Chakraborty vs. Bidhannagar Municipalty, 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 7708). 12. The gist of the Circular is compensation in lieu of submerged land. On a plain reading of the Circular, it would be evident that there are pre- requisites to be strictly complied with before any claimant may be awarded compensation. This necessarily involves any claimant satisfying the necessary qualifications before being entitled to compensation. In order to be eligible for compensation in lieu of land submerged during Tsunami, a claimant would necessarily have to satisfy inter-alia the following requirements:- a) Whether the claimant is the owner of the land? b) Whether the land for which compensation has been sought is submerged land or not? c) Whether the claimant has suffered any damages or not? d) Whether the claimant is in a position to surrender the land in lieu of which compensation is proposed to be paid? e) Whether there has been any encroachment of Government or forest land in the Islands by the claimant? 13. The question whether the respondent no. 1 is entitled to compensation or not needs careful examination and a detailed evaluation. Each one of the above aspects to be adjudicated by the authorities would entail a factual enquiry before any order for compensation can be finally passed. Compensation is not to be equated with dole or bounty or lottery winnings but is based purely on entitlement. It is not the role of any Adjudicating Authority to be benevolent at the expense of the public exchequer. In such cases, there is simply no scope for generosity or charity. Compensation is not to be equated with dole or bounty or lottery winnings but is based purely on entitlement. It is not the role of any Adjudicating Authority to be benevolent at the expense of the public exchequer. In such cases, there is simply no scope for generosity or charity. None of the pre- requisites for seeking compensation have been adjudicated upon. The question of whether the respondent no. 1 is an owner or in a position to surrender the submerged land for which the compensation has been claimed or the question of encroachment by the respondent no.1 are questions which would need careful deliberation. 14. Significantly, the respondent no. 1 had also filed a suit being Title Suit No.169/2014 pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Port Blair, South Andaman District seeking a declaration that they are entitled to an extension of the above grants for a further period of 30 years from 1 January, 2015 and are also entitled to continue to remain in possession of the suit premises measuring approximately 1200 acres of land. By an interim order dated 13 December 2021, the Civil Court had directed status quo in respect of the entire suit premises. There is apparently a cloud in respect of the title of the above premises. Any adjudication of compensation in favour of or against of the respondent no. 1 may also incidentally affect the merits of the pending suit. There is also an aspect of encroachment in terms of the Circular which requires examination. As such, it is in public interest that the question of compensation be comprehensively examined. In such circumstances, insofar as the impugned order directs the appellant Administration to consider the claim for compensation on the basis of any assumptions, the same is without basis and severely thwarts any fair adjudication in terms of the Circular. The impugned judgment does not furnish any basis or justification in arriving at any of the assumptions. 15. There are also no reasons in the impugned judgment. Despite the appellant having raised an issue of the pre-requisites for compensation not having been satisfied before the Learned Single Judge, there has been no adjudication of the same. The failure to render any findings insofar as the assumptions are concerned is a serious jurisdictional error which vitiates the impugned judgment. Reasons form the cornerstone of any judicial order. Despite the appellant having raised an issue of the pre-requisites for compensation not having been satisfied before the Learned Single Judge, there has been no adjudication of the same. The failure to render any findings insofar as the assumptions are concerned is a serious jurisdictional error which vitiates the impugned judgment. Reasons form the cornerstone of any judicial order. The contention of the respondent no.1 that all the material and relevant facts have been admitted and could be inferred or logically deduced on a combined interpretation of the different orders passed in the prior rounds of litigation has not even been considered in the impugned judgment and requires careful examination. There is no question of making any payment without satisfying the above pre-conditions. There is nothing to demonstrate that the judicial mind has been applied to the matters in issue and conveys any nexus between the matters which have been considered and the conclusion based thereon. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them, one is left with a shell. This is not a case of inadequacy of reasons. There are simply no reasons at all. It is well settled that judicial orders need to meet the twin tests of “why” and “what”. It is the “why” which sustains the “what”. Reasons are not the ipse dixit of the decision making process. This is also a facet of the Rule of Law. Significantly, the impugned order has no element of “why” for the “what” to stand on and that is a serious infirmity in the impugned order. In passing the impugned judgement, the Learned Judge has in effect crippled the entire decision making process and made a mockery of the same. [Union Public Service Commission vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 516 and Uniworth Resorts Limited & Others vs. Ashok Mittal & Others, (2008) 4 Comp LJ 3305 (Cal), 111 CWN 1015] . 16. Even on the touchstone of the public trust doctrine, resources like air, sea, water and forests have such great importance to the people as a whole that the same cannot be treated in a casual and cavalier manner. Where public interest of such grave magnitude is involved, the same cannot be adjudicated on the basis of, surmises, conjectures or hypothesis. Public resources need protection and preservation. The attitude that something which belongs to all belongs to none is to be condemned. Where public interest of such grave magnitude is involved, the same cannot be adjudicated on the basis of, surmises, conjectures or hypothesis. Public resources need protection and preservation. The attitude that something which belongs to all belongs to none is to be condemned. The act of property grabbers (which includes their financiers) and other unscrupulous persons playing with public resources is unacceptable in a system which aspires to be governed by the Rule of Law. How property situated at Andamans and a sizeable portion thereof is allegedly conveyed either by way of grant or otherwise for a pittance in favour of a company now having its registered office at Kolkata may also require examination. Significantly, both the 1926 and the 1966 Regulations provide for express prohibitions against assignment, sub-letting, mortgage or parting with possession. The decision in The Malabar Co-operative Coconut Farming Society vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Other (Unreported decision of the High Court at Calcutta dated 11 December 2017 passed in WP 25209 of 2017) relied on by the respondent no.1 is distinguishable and inapposite. In any event, the said decision has not attained finality in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. Insofar as the prayer of the writ petitioner seeking a direction on the appellants to take a decision on the application filed by the writ petitioner on 7 March, 2018 is concerned, there can be no objection to the same. The right to a decision is not only a cardinal requirement of good governance but also the Rule of Law. The appellant Administration is obliged to promptly take such decisions. Though notices for reassessment had been issued by the appellant Administration and an inspection carried out, no final decision has yet been arrived at. There are multitude of reasons as to why such decisions are not timely taken stretching from lethargy to deliberate inaction resulting in our dockets being unnecessarily piled up. However, the prayer for appointment of a Special Officer or Receiver or any other authority to adjudicate upon the question of compensation is without any legal justification and has not been pressed. Similarly, the apprehension of the respondent no.1 as to the basis of any decision by the appellant Administration or the applicability of any particular Circular, Notification or Guideline is premature and misplaced. 18. Similarly, the apprehension of the respondent no.1 as to the basis of any decision by the appellant Administration or the applicability of any particular Circular, Notification or Guideline is premature and misplaced. 18. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is set aside. The appellant Administration is directed to consider and dispose of the application dated 7 March 2018 filed by the respondent no.1 in accordance with law. The above exercise is to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order and after granting an opportunity of hearing to any of the affected parties, if necessary. It is made clear that the appellant Administration will consider the application filed by the respondent no.1 without being influenced by any observation on the merits of the case and strictly in accordance with law. 19. In conclusion, it is important to highlight that the history of land insofar as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is concerned is in many ways sui generis. Most of the demography of the Islands derives from pre-and post- independence settlement policies. Land was a basis of both sustenance and identity of settlers coming from the mainland. There have been chronic land issues pertaining to the land at Andamans. Development options are severely constrained due to acute shortage of land. To add to this is the genuineness and veracity of the land records. An avowed aim of all concerned being to keep the Islands free from contamination. In this background, the Report of the Committee on Land Matters in Andaman & Nicobar Islands (2017), prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India also highlights that the entire object of Tsunami compensation was to compensate the recorded owner of land who had surrendered their submerged land in lieu of compensation and do not have any legal entitlement over the same. This requires serious consideration and cannot be adjudicated upon on the basis of assumptions. 20. To the above extent, MAT/24/2024 succeeds and is allowed. In view of the above, nothing survives in CAN 2 of 2024 and the same stands disposed of as infructuous. MAT/31/2024 is dismissed. All connected applications are disposed of as infructuous. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. I agree. - Prasenjit Biswas, J.