1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/369/2026 Sandhya Rani Saojal and Others Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents July 29, 2026 [AKB] Item No.1 1. The petitioner and the respondent authorities are represented by their respective counsel. 2. Bt filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities more specifically against the respondent No.3 authority to make a demarcation of the land of the writ petitioner particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition with a further prayer commending the jurisdictional Tehsildar to demarcate the land of the writ petitioner within a time frame. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that from the records of right, a copy which has been annexed to the instant writ petition at page No. 8 it would reveal that survey/plot Nos. 143 and 144 in village Guptapara under Tehsil Ferrargunj, District South Andaman stood recorded in the name of the writ petitioner. It is further 2 submitted that since there was an encroachment over the said two plots of land the present writ petitioners being the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 130 of 2011 against the said encroacher (Ajit Ranjan Saojal) for recovery of possession of the encroached land in the aforementioned two plots of land which was however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgement and decree dated 20.11.2016. It is submitted further that the writ petitioners being the plaintiffs to the said suit thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 04 of 2017 before the Additional District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair which was allowed by the said Appellate Court by its judgement and decree dated 08.07.2019 whereby and whereunder the said Appellate Court directed the defendant/respondent of the said appeal to quit and vacate the suit property i.e. the encroached property. 4. It is submitted further that the appeal preferred by the defendants/respondent before the Hon’ble High Court being SAT No. 11 of 2019 was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.11.2024. 5. It is submitted further that it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that thereafter with the intervention of the executing Court the present writ petitioner got khas and vacant possession of the suit property in the aforementioned two plots in question and soon thereafter the writ petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 authority by submitting the representation dated 22.08.2025 requesting him to demarcate aforementioned two plots. 3 6. It is submitted that pursuant to such representation the jurisdictional Settlement officer has started a Revenue Case under Regulations 49, 50 and 51 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 (Regulations for short) vide RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404. 7. It is submitted that despite initiation of the said RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404 the Settlement Officer has not yet come to a logical conclusion of the same. 8. It is thus submitted that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers of the instant writ petition. 9. Per contra, Ms. Babita Das learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits before this Court that process of demarcation is done by the Tehsildar in terms of Regulation 99 of the Regulations. It is further submitted by Ms. Das that jurisdictional Tehsildar has not been made a party. 10. It is thus submitted that in view of such the writ petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 11. On careful perusal of entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing learned advocates for the contending parties it appears that on the basis of the representation dated 22.08.2025 as submitted by the writ petitioner to the respondent No. 3 authority, the jurisdictional Settlement Officer has initiated RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404. 12. In view of such this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the jurisdictional Settlement Officer to come to a 4 logical conclusion in respect of RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404 within 60 (sixty) working days from the date of communication of this order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or their authorized representative. 13. It is further directed in the event while disposing the RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404 the said jurisdictional Settlement Officer finds sufficient substance in the representation dated 22.08.2025, he is directed to ask the jurisdictional Tehsildar to take appropriate steps for demarcation of the land of the writ petitioners particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition positively within 30 (thirty) working days from the date of disposal of the said RC No.24/SETT/GP/2015/404. 14. With the aforementioned observation the instant writ petition is disposed of. 15. Before parting with it is made clear that time limits as fixed by this Court are peremptory and mandatory. 16. It is further made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the representation dated 22.08.2025 and thus all points are kept open for adjudication by the jurisdictional Settlement Officer. 17. Since affidavits have not been called for the allegations made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 5 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J. )