IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/9/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026, CAN/2/2026, CAN/3/2026) Smti. Savitri Bala Gain and Others Vs. Shri Sagar Chakraborty and Another Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the appellants Ms. A.S.Zinu … for the respondent No.1 Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent no.2 February 02, 2026 [SR] Item No.09 Re: CAN/1/2026 ( Leave to Prefer appeal) This is an application for leave to prefer appeal against a judgment and order dated August 28, 2025, whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of WP/427/2025 by directing the respondent in the writ petition, being the concerned Tehsildar, to consider the writ petitioner’s representation dated April 03, 2025, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders, in accordance with law by way of a speaking order. The present applicants were not made parties to the writ petition. Hence, they pray for leave of this court to prefer the appeal against the said order. They say that they are the owners of the land in question. Suppressing that fact, the writ petitioner sought mutation of the land in question on the basis of a mere sale agreement. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the applicants have sufficient interest in the matter. We allow this application. CAN/1/2026 is disposed of. Re: CAN/2/2026 This is an application for condonation of delay of 113 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated August 28, 2025, whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of WPA/427/2025. Causes shown being sufficient, we condone the delay. CAN/2/2026 is disposed of. Re: MAT/9/2026 with CAN/3/2026 ( Appeal & Stay) By consent of the parties, the appeal and the stay application are taken up for hearing together. The respondent no.1 herein approached the learned Single Judge with the grievance that his representation dated April 03, 2025, made to the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman District, was not being considered. By the said representation, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, sought mutation of certain landed properties as mentioned in the learned Single Judge’s order. Learned Single Judge observed in his order that there is a registered sale deed dated June 13, 1963, whereby the deceased husband of the lady whose power of attorney holder is the writ petitioner, had purchased the said landed property from Subodh Chandra Gain. Learned Single Judge, therefore, 3 directed the respondent no.2 herein, being the concerned Tehsildar, to dispose of the representation of the respondent no.1/petitioner. The appellants say that Subodh Chandra Gain is their paternal uncle, since deceased. They further say that the concerned landed properties were never transferred to the principal of the writ petitioner or to anybody else by executing a registered conveyance. Hence, there could be no question of mutation of the concerned landed property in favour of the writ petitioner or his principal whose power of attorney, the writ petitioner held. To our query, learned advocate for the Tehsildar says that the concerned landed property is still in the name of Subodh Chandra Gain in the land records. We, therefore, see that the learned Single Judge was not properly assisted in the matter. Admittedly there is no registered sale deed in respect of the concerned landed properties. In our view, the writ petitioner ought to have impleaded the present appellants as respondents in the writ petition since any order passed on the writ petition would affect the present appellants. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the order under appeal and remand the matter to be adjudicated afresh by the learned Single Judge having determination. Consequently, the writ petition revives. 4 We add the present appellants as party respondents to the writ petition. The writ petitioner shall add them as respondents in the writ petition and serve all necessary papers on them or their learned advocate. The parties will be at liberty to mention the matter before the learned Single Judge for fresh hearing. We clarify that we have not considered the merits of the case, which is for the learned Single Judge to decide after hearing the parties. The proceeding before the Tehsildar, which was initiated pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, which we have set side, also stands set aside. The writ petitioner and the respondents including the added respondents will be at liberty to use further affidavits before the learned Single Judge. MAT/9/2026 and the connected application being CAN/3/2026 are disposed of. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)