IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI MAT/31/2025 IA No. CAN/2/2025 Shri Shaktivel ... Appellant Versus The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others ... Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. KMB Jayapal For the Administration : Ms. Babita Das For the respondent No.4 : Mr. Arul Prasanth Heard on : 29.07.2025 Judgment on : 01.08.2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 29, 2025 passed by learned Single Judge in connection with WPA/226/2025. 2. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The said writ petition being WPA/226/2025 was filed challenging an order directing removal of unauthorized occupation over the land bearing Survey No. 2 31/1/14 situated within Lamba Line village under Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil. 3. According to the case made out by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was in lawful occupation of the Survey No. 34/1/15 situated in the Lamba Line village which he acquired by dint of deed of sale executed on May 18, 2015. The said land was duly mutated in the name of the writ petitioner after such purchase. 4. A case was made out that since plot No. 34/1/15 belonging to the writ petitioner was contiguous to plot No. 34/1/14, the writ petitioner reasonably apprehended that by dint of the order under challenge in the writ petition dated April 22, 2025, writ petitioner might be evicted from the land bearing Survey No. 34/1/15 without due process of law. It was also submitted that after acquiring the said plot bearing Survey No. 34/1/15, the writ petitioner applied and received No Objection Certificate from the concerned authorities for raising construction thereon. 5. The writ petitioner also made out a case that prior to his purchase, his predecessor in interest initiated an eviction proceeding against the wife of the writ petitioner namely Smt. Jayanthi seeking her eviction from the land bearing Survey No. 34/1/14 covering an area of 200 Sq.mtrs at village Lamba Line. 3 Ultimately by the intervention of the High Court the wife of the writ petitioner was evicted from the land bearing plot No. 34/1/14, though, she had not encroached any portion of such land. Subsequently, the private respondent purchased plot No. 34/1/14 by a deed dated January 2, 2018 and got her name mutated in respect of such land in the revenue records. 6. Record reveals on an apprehension that the writ petitioner might be dispossessed from his land bearing Survey No. 34/1/15, the writ petitioner filed a civil suit bearing Other Suit No. 18 of 2021 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Port Blair seeking a decree for permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the private respondent. The suit was ultimately dismissed by a judgment and order dated February 27, 2024. Subsequently, the writ petitioner also carried an appeal against the judgment and order passed in Other Suit No. 18 of 2021, which was also lost by the writ petitioner. Second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal carried by the writ petitioner was not admitted. 7. It is the contention of the appellant that in view of the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Court as well as the Appellate Court, the respondent No. 3 without assigning any reason, passed an order of eviction on April 22, 2025, directing 4 the writ petitioner to vacate the land bearing survey No. 34/1/14 covering an area of 200 Sq.mtrs. It was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that such an order of eviction, would in effect dispossess the writ petitioner from the land purchased by him bearing Survey No. 34/1/15. He received physical possession of such land on May 21, 2019 from the respondent No.3. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner also referred to an agreement together with a sketch map dated January 20, 2013. According to learned advocate for the writ petitioner the possession in respect of the respective lands were settled between vendors of the writ petitioner as well as that of the private respondent. Since then the writ petitioner has been residing in the property in his occupation. 8. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the order impugned as well as the materials placed before this Court, it transpires that the writ petitioner apparently purchased Survey Plot No. 34/1/15. By an order issued by respondent No. 3 on April 22, 2025, the writ petitioner was directed to quit and vacate the property in plot No. 34/1/14. 9. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has no claim over plot No. 34/1/14. He acquired plot No. 34/1/15 by dint of sale deed. It is over this plot of land bearing survey No. 34/1/15, from which 5 the writ petitioner apprehends to be dispossessed on the force of the order impugned in the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the private respondent has no claim over the land appertaining to survey No. 34/1/15. She acquired the land bearing survey No. 34/1/14 from its erstwhile owner in the year 2018. 10. As noted above, the impugned notice was issued for eviction in respect of survey plot No. 34/1/14 which does not belong to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner claims right and title in respect of land bearing survey plot no. 34/1/15. In that view of the fact, the instant writ application seeking quashing /annulment and setting aside of the office order dated April 22, 2025 issued by the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram is apparently baseless as the writ petitioner never claimed any right and title in respect of plot No. 34/1/14. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the writ petitioner as to on what ground he apprehends that he would be evicted from his land appertaining to plot No. 34/1/15 on the strength of an order passed in respect of plot no. 34/1/14. 11. Apart from that, the materials on records exhibit that one Smt. Medona Baisal was the owner of land appertaining to Survey No. 34/1/14. She preferred one revenue case against the wife of the writ petitioner on the allegation of illegal 6 encroachment on her land. In such proceeding an eviction order was passed against the wife of the writ petitioner. The wife of the writ petitioner preferred an appeal against such order of eviction which was dismissed. She also filed a second appeal against the dismissal of her appeal. Such second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, Medona Baisal filed a writ petition being WP 450 of 2016 seeking implementation of the order passed in the eviction proceeding. 12. The High Court disposed of the said writ application by directing the Tehsildar to take effective steps for implementation of the order passed in the eviction proceeding. Accordingly the Tehsildar took up the demolition work in compliance with the order passed by the High Court in WP 450 of 2016. The entire proceedings and the consequential demolition work and removal of illegal encroachment in the aforesaid proceedings were in respect of plot No. 34/1/14. 13. The materials on record also reveal that the present writ petitioner applied before the Tehsildar against one Shri Alex Mathew in a revenue proceeding. In an appeal against such proceeding being Revenue Appeal No. 6 of 2014 preferred by his wife, the writ petitioner disclosed that there was an order of survey and demarcation of land by the SDM in respect of land in survey No. 34/1/14 and 34/1/15. According to the direction 7 of the SDM survey and demarcation of the two plots were conducted on September 23, 2014. Such survey and demarcation revealed that one Alex Mathew was occupying the land bearing plot No. 34/1/15 measuring an area of 200 Sq. mtrs. which was originally recorded in the name of one Smt. Zubaida Bibi. In the said proceeding the writ petitioner prayed for eviction of Dr. Alex Mathew from the land bearing survey No. 34/1/15 which was purchased by the writ petitioner from Smt. Zubaida Bibi. 14. The writ petitioner, prior to filing the instant writ application, had approached the Civil Court seeking permanent injunction against the respondent, being Other Suit No. 18 of 2021 in respect of his land bearing survey No. 34/1/15. By a judgment and decree dated February 27, 2024, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court taking into consideration that the suit land which was acquired by the writ petitioner by dint of a sale deed from its erstwhile owner Smt. Zubaida Bibi was under the occupation of Alex Mathew and Mathew Joseph. The learned Trial Court also held that the land belonging to the private respondent being survey No. 34/1/14 was illegally occupied by the writ petitioner by raising construction thereon. It was specifically held in the said suit that the writ petitioner had encroached upon and was in illegal 8 occupation of the land belonging to the private respondent bearing survey No. 34/1/14. Accordingly the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The writ petitioner carried an appeal from the dismissal of Other Suit No. 18 of 2021, being Title Appeal No. 5 of 2024. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The learned First appellate Court also held at the time of disposal of the Title Appeal that from the report of the Tehsildar it was evident that Survey No. 34/1/15, over which the appellant has a claim of title, was under the occupation of one Mathew Joseph. 15. The writ petitioner also filed a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 5 of 2024. However, such Second Appeal was not admitted by the High Court by an order dated March 18, 2025 passed in SAT/2/2025. 16. As we have noted earlier that the writ petitioner claims right, title and interest over the plot of land bearing survey No. 34/1/15, he has nothing to do with plot No. 34/1/14. It is not in dispute that the notice impugned in the writ petition dated April 22, 2025 was in respect of plot No. 34/1/14. It has nothing to do with plot No. 34/1/15. Any eviction or removal of encroachment in respect of plot No. 34/1/14, in no way affects 9 the right and title of the writ petitioner over his property bearing survey No. 34/1/15. 17. Moreover, the writ petitioner litigated over his rights in respect of the land bearing survey No. 34/1/15. His rights in respect of such land stood crystalized up to the stage of second appeal. It came out from the aforesaid proceedings that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was occupied by some third person, Mathew Joseph, and the writ petitioner has chosen not to take any steps against such encroacher. The writ petitioner does not claim any right and title in respect of plot No. 34/1/14 and therefore he cannot claim any relief in respect of a property over which he has no right and title. 18. In the light of the aforegone discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. We affirm the same. 19. Accordingly, MAT/31/2025 with CAN/2/2025 are disposed of without any order as to costs. 20. The authorities will proceed to take steps for implementation of the order dated April 22, 2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram in respect of the land in question in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months form date. 10 21. Urgent certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. I agree (Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)