1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR SA/2/2026 SHRI DAYANAND KAMBLE … APPELLANT VS. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS For the appellant : Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal Mr. Pranay Prasun For the respondents : Ms. Babita Das Ms. Pushpa Bai Heard on : July 03, 2026 and July 08, 2026 Judgment on : July 09, 2026 SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. 1. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.07.2024 and decree dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Title Appeal No.11 of 2018 whereby the learned District Judge, being the First Appellate Court, affirmed the trial court’s judgment and decreed dated 07.08.2018. 2. The appellant /plaintiff instituted the original suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Port Blair which was registered as Title Suit 2 No.2 of 2014 against the respondents/defendants, being the various authorities of these Islands. 3. In nutshell, the sum and substance of the plaint case was that – (i) The parents of the appellant/plaintiff were brought to these islands by the then Administration under colonization scheme in the year 1976. At that point of time, the plaintiff was about 16 years old. The plaintiff and his father jointly encroached a piece of revenue land bearing survey No.47/P measuring an area of approximately three acres situated at Laxmi Nagar Village, Campbell Bay Tehsil, Nicobar District. This happened in the year 1976. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff cleared the jungle, bushes and developed the suit land, constructed accommodation and starting living there with family. (ii) Because of ignorance of law, the plaintiff or his father could not make appropriate application for regularisation of the subject land in their favour during this period. During constitution of High Power Committee by the A & N Administration and field enquiry , the appellant/plaintiff intimated the then Patwari and the Revenue Inspector on the factum of encroachment of the subject land since 1978 and requested the authority to make 3 available to the appellant/plaintiff benefits of Pre-1978 scheme but regularisation was kept in abeyance. (iii) The Patwari imposed penalty on the appellant/plaintiff for encroaching the suit land to the extent of Rs.50/- on 04.05.2001. Consideration, according to the plaint case, for imposing meager amount of penalty was the appellant’s long possession and occupation since 1978. (iv) The Sub Divisional Officer of Great Nicobar Island issued a notice under section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation, 1966) in term of R.C. NO.70 dated 17.06.2011 to the appellant/plaintiff whereby the said Sub Divisional Officer directed the appellant/plaintiff to appear before him on 20.06.2011 asking him to explain why the unauthorized occupation of the appellant/plaintiff should not be removed. Subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer, Great Nicobar Islands passed an order dated 01.07.2011 directing the appellant/plaintiff to remove the fencing around the suit land and also vacate the same. However, the said Sub Divisional Officer dropped the proceeding against the appellant/plaintiff. The 4 appellant/plaintiff continued long possession and occupation in the suit land. (v) On 26.03.2013, the Assistant Commissioner and Tehsildar, Campbell Bay, Great Nicobar Islands came to the suit land with police personnels and started removing the fencing. They also removed the trees and vegetables. It was also pleaded that the said activities were illegal and without due process of law since no prior notice had been served on the appellant/plaintiff. (vi) On 03.05.2013, the Patwari of Laxmi Nagar Panchayat and PRI members accompanied by police personals and revenue officials came to the suit land and arrested the plaintiff and his wife. It was also intimated to the appellant/plaintiff that Panchayat Bhawan was proposed to be constructed in the suit land. (vii) It was pleaded that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law; the appellant/plaintiff was ousted from the suit land illegally and forcefully. It was also pleaded that sub- section 8 of Section 202 of the Regulation was also offended. Several provisions of the said Regulation, 1966 was also offended by the respondents/defendants. 5 (viii) In that conspectus of facts, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the original suit praying for declaratory decree that the plaintiff was in continuous khas and peaceful possession of the suit land since 1978; declaratory decree directing the appropriate defendants to regularize the subject landed property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Pre-1978 Scheme; decree of declaration that the right, title and interest of the government in the suit land has been extinguished by efflux of time; permanent injunction and other prayers. 4. 4. Though notice was issued on the respondents/defendants under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, none appeared on behalf of the defendants by filing written statements. Although there was no written statement strangely enough, the learned Trial Court framed several issues. 5. The Trial Court, in the impugned judgment, observed that the appellant/plaintiff was asked to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Great Nicobar in terms of notice dated 17.06.2011 to show cause why unauthorized occupation should not be removed. It was observed from Exhibit-8 that due notice had been served on the appellant/plaintiff for removing his occupation from the government land under section 201(1) of the said Regulation, 1966. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff repeatedly violated the provisions of law as enunciated in the said 6 Regulation. It was also found that the summary procedure as contemplated in the said Regulation had been duly complied with. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded and dismissed the suit on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair. 7. The appeal was registered as Title Appeal No.11 of 2018. The learned District Judge, being the First Appellant Court, was authorized by law to consider the factual matrix, evidence as well as question of law. 8. The First Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, observed that the appellant/plaintiff failed to produce any documents showing his stay in the Islands before 1978. In other words, the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish his period of stay since the year 1978. It was further observed that onus vested on the appellant/plaintiff to prove that he had been residing on these islands prior to 1978. Had he been successful in doing so his name could have been included in the scheme of regularization of the year 1987 but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the learned First Appellate Court, being the District Judge, upheld an affirmed the judgment and decree passed the Trial Court in terms of the impugned judgment. 7 9. The instant second appeal was admitted by framing the following substantial question of law. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, provision of Section 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 has been complied with while taking steps dispossess and evict the plaintiff/appellant?” 10. The learned Counsel plaintiff/appellant argued that the order for removal of fencing was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in terms of notice bearing R.C. NO.AC/CB/70 dated 01.07.2011. Such order should be passed by the Revenue Officer from whose order appeal could have been preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer. Since the Sub Divisional Officer himself passed the order, the action was illegal, contrary to the said provision and deprived the appellant/plaintiff from one forum of appeal. At least, on that score, the order passed by the Administration should be set aside. According to the learned Counsel, this is a serious irregularity as well as illegality of the whole process of eviction. It was further argued that the process of dispossession was illegal without due process of law. No notice had been served on the appellant before hand. 11. Ms. Das, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Administration submitted that the appellant never approached the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 28 of the Regulation. She further argued that the 8 suit was for declaration of pre-1978 status which the appellant failed to establish. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. 12. Section 28(1) of the said Regulation provides for mechanism of appeal. In terms of the said section 28(1)(a), if an order is passed by the Revenue Officer sub-ordinate to the Sub Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the power of the Deputy Commissioner to the Sub Divisional Officer. Section 28(1)(b) provides that if such order is passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the power of the Deputy Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. 13. Express provision of the said sub-sections provides with hierarchy of forums for appeals. Since the order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, a forum of appeal was open to the appellant/plaintiff. There is nothing on record that the appellant/plaintiff exhausted the remedies, so provided. 14. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court passed their respective judgments and decrees on appreciation of evidence of by applying the provisions of law and the said Regulation. 15. The order of eviction was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on notice and after giving opportunity of hearing to him. Both the Courts 9 passed judgments on appreciating material evidences placed before it. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was illegal or the eviction process offended any of the provisions of the Regulation. Another thing should be kept in mind, the suit was filed for declaratory relief and permanent injunction. A Civil Court may pass such a decree subject to proof. In this case, the Trial and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that the appellant failed to establish his case. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued on the point of ultra vires act on behalf of the respondent. The appellant neither approached the Appellant Authority constituted under Section 28 of the Regulation nor invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge any action. Factual matrix has already been decided and neither of the Courts concluded that any provision of the Regulation was infringed. 16. For reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings of both the Courts should not be interfered into. 17. The instant appeal fails. The appeal is dismissed on merit and disposed of accordingly along with pending application, if any. 18. Let the trial court records be transmitted forthwith. 19. Let the decree be drawn accordingly. 10 20. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. )