IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/134/2026 Shri Gopal Singh and Another Vs. The Tehsildar and Another Mr. Siddhartha Singha … for the petitioners Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent no.1 Mr. V. D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar … for the respondent no.2 July 10, 2026 [AKB] Item No.30 This application is directed against the inaction of the respondent Tehsildar in disposing of the petitioner’s application dated November 25, 2024 seeking grant of easement right of ingress in favour of the petitioners over the respondents’ quarters by directing the respondent to modify a portion of the boundary wall to create proper access way. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 104 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966, a Tehsildar has the power to remove obstacles that impede the free use of a recognized road/path or common land of a village and that notwithstanding the caption of the petitioner’s application and the prayer therein for easement right the application is in effect for exercise of power under Regulation 104 the 1966 Regulations. 2 An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 which indicates inter alia that the colony (comprises the respondent’s quarters) has been there since 1970 and that the gate of such colony has been closed for safety reasons so as to prevent trespassers and outsiders from entering into the said colony and parking vehicles there, thereby raising safety and integrity issues for the residents of the colony. The respondents contend that the Tehsildar does not have power to decide easementary right. There is substance in such contention. However, the petitioner contends that the substance of the application is such that Tehsildar’s power under Regulation 104 of the 1966 Regulations can be invoked. It has been alleged that the petitioners are senior citizens who are being prejudiced due to blockade of the road by closing the gate in the boundary wall of the colony leaving only a narrow path open. It is noticed that in terms of Regulation 204 of the 1966 Regulations a civil suit is barred. In such view of the matter this Court is of the view since an application has been made before the Tehsildar, it should be left to the Tehsildar to take appropriate decision on the petitioner’s application. The same cannot be kept pending indefinitely. This writ application is therefore disposed of by requesting the Tehsildar to dispose of the petitioner’s 3 application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date. It is made clear that this direction would not mean authorizing the Tehsildar to take any such decision which the Tehsildar is not empowered to take in accordance with law. In case the Tehsildar finds that the Tehsildar is not authorized to pass any order on such application, the Tehsildar would be free to pass appropriate orders saying so. Needless to mention that the Tehsildar shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties and shall assign reasons for any order that the Tehsildar will be ultimately passing. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/134/2026 stands disposed of. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)