IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/427/2025 Shri Sagar Chakraborty Vs The Tehsildar Ms. A. S. Zinu … for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar … for the respondent no.1 Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the private respondents July 08, 2026 [AKB] Item No.22 1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the non consideration of the representation dated April 3, 2025 made by the petitioner before the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj requesting for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the relevant Record of Rights. 2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject landed property. It is the petitioner’s case that an agreement for sale had been entered into by the petitioner’s husband and the original recorded owners of the said land. The private respondents claim to be the legal heirs and representatives of the original recorded owners which is disputed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner had initially applied for mutation of her name in respect of the subject property on May 28, 2006. Such application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj by an order dated February 26, 2007. 4. Subsequently, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents instituted Title Suit No. 107 of 2010 before the 2 Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Port Blair praying inter alia for a decree of eviction of the petitioner as well as for a declaration that the agreement for sale executed in favour of the petitioner was void. Such suit was ultimately dismissed by a judgment and decree dated December 31, 2018. 5. The said decree of dismissal was carried in appeal being Title Appeal No. 05 of 2019 before the Learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The appeal met the same fate as that of the suit. 6. It is submitted that the first appellate decree is pending challenge before this Court in a second appeal. 7. Upon the suit being dismissed, the petitioner made a fresh application for mutation before the Tehsildar which remains pending. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition was initially disposed of at the motion stage without any of the private respondents being there in the array of parties. 9. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the private respondents challenged the initial order passed in this writ petition in appeal being MAT 09 of 2026 before the Hon’ble Division. Ultimately, by an order dated February 2, 2026 the said appeal preferred by the private respondents was disposed of by remanding the writ petition to the learned Single Judge having determination after adding the appellants before the Hon’ble Division Bench as party respondents to the writ petition. 3 10. Accordingly, the matter is now before this Court and affidavits have already been exchanged by the parties. 11. Ms. Zinu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar could not have kept the petitioner’s application in limbo without taking any decision thereon. 12. Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that the application that has been filed before the Tehsildar is itself not maintainable inasmuch as, the issue as to whether the petitioner’s name could be mutated in the relevant record of rights or not has already been decided by the Tehsildar as far back as in the year 2007 and such order has attained finality. 13. He relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Chief Executive Officer and others –versus- S. Lalitha and others reported at 2025 INSC 565 to submit that repeated representations would not enliven dead claims. 14. Mr. Sivabalan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that the landed properties are all owned by the Government and it is not title but only the interest in such properties that can be transferred by any person. 15. Ms. Zinu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13146/2021 decided on September 06, 2021 and submits that it is well settled that mutation of name in Record of Rights neither creates nor 4 extinguishes title and as such, any earlier decision taken by the Revenue Authority would not preclude the Revenue Authority from taking a fresh decision in case of a change of circumstance. 16. She submits that in view of the fact that the private respondents’ challenge to the agreement for sale on the basis whereof the petitioner claims to be in possession of the landed property has failed, the petitioner is well within her rights to apply afresh for getting her name mutated in the record of rights. 17. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 18. It is well settled that the proceedings for mutation before a Tehsildar are not judicial proceedings and they do not decide questions of title. It is also well settled that decision taken by Tehsildar cannot be cited as a basis or source to assert a bar of res-judicata (See Mahila Bajrangi vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464). However that by itself would not mean that applications based on the same cause of action can be filed one after the other by the same person upon rejection of the earlier. Situation would however, be different if a fresh development takes place justifying updation of record of rights. 19. In the instant case, it is the petitioner’s contention that upon the Title Suit, whereby the petitioner’s agreement for sale was challenged, being dismissed, the petitioner has got a fresh cause of action for the purpose of filing an application before the Tehsildar. 5 20. In such view of the matter it can’t be said that the petitioner’s application should be altogether ignored by the Tehsildar. 21. However, the decision as to whether the petitioner’s application is maintainable on the perceived fresh cause of action or not or as to whether on the basis of such application the petitioner’s name could at all be mutated in the Record of Rights or not would ultimately have to be taken by the Tehsildar in accordance with law and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Chief Executive Officer and others (supra) relied on by Mr. Kumar has taken note of a plethora authorities on the salutary proposition that mere making of a representation or grant of liberty to make a representation would not resuscitate to life a dead claim. The question as to whether the petitioner’s claim is dead or alive would now be decided by the Tehsildar. 23. The private respondents represented by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, shall be entitled to take all objections including the objection as regards maintainability of the petitioner’s application before the Tehsildar. The petitioner would like wise be entitled to assert his case of fresh cause. 24. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim and the objection of the respondents and all points are left open to be decided by the Tehsildar in accordance with law. 6 25. The Tehsildar is requested to dispose of the petitioner’s application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon granting an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. 26. WPA/427/2025 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)