IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/341/2025 Shri. A. Saravana Kumar Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal …. for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Ajoy Kumar Mondal … for the private respondent July 09, 2026 [AKB] Item No.27 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged interference with the improvement work sought to be undertaken by the writ petitioner in respect of the land measuring 2378 Sq.mtrs. under his possession in survey No. 28/2 (Plot No. 6) classified as P-II at village Ram Nagar, Sri Vijaya Puram, South Andaman. 2. The respondent no. 4 has instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 17 of 2020, inter alia, for a decree for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, an interim order of injunction has been passed whereby the parties to the suit i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 have been restrained from changing the nature and character of the suit property till disposal of the suit. 3. The petitioner claims to be a recorded tenant in respect of the subject property and it is his case that his attempts to improve the property are being illegally impeded with by the 2 respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that the petitioner is acting in violation of the order passed by the learned Civil Court. 4. Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies on a Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shri Dharam Raj – versus – Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others (WP 288 of 2013) delivered on November 28, 2013 and a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case in MA No. 010 of 2014 (Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others – versus – Shri Dharam Raj) decided on June 12, 2014 to contend that any improvement which is coherent with the purpose for which the land is held by a tenant can be permitted. 5. Ms. Babita Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the authorities are duty bound to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 are scrupulously adhered to. It is submitted that it is only in such context and to such extent that, the authorities have asserted themselves. 6. Mr. Ajoy Kumar Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that there is an order of injunction in place and the petitioner cannot be allowed to do anything in violation thereof. 7. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material on record. 3 8. It is not in dispute that there is an interim order of injunction restraining both the petitioner and the private respondent from changing the nature and character of the suit property. In such view of the matter, nothing that could change the nature and character of the property in suit can be permitted to be done except with the permission of the learned Trial Court upon getting the order of injunction varied or modified to that extent. However, if without changing the nature and character of the property in suit (i.e. without acting in violation of the order of the Civil Court) and while adhering to the 1966 Regulations, (which have been interpreted by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Dharam Raj (Supra) to mean an improvement which is coherent with the purpose for which the subject land is held) any improvement can be done, the same can be carried out by the petitioner. It is reiterated that the nature and character of the property in suit should not be changed and the 1966 Regulations should not violated. 9. If the petitioner gives an undertaking to this effect to the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the petitioner’s work. 10. It is further clarified that this order shall not be treated as a licence to bypass the order of injunction passed by the learned Civil Court and or to take any step to change the nature and character of the suit property. If the petitioner takes any such step that has the effect of changing the nature and character of the suit property such step would be at the peril of the petitioner and the private respondent would be at liberty to 4 take appropriate steps before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/341/2025 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)