IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/17/2026 Smt. Mani Mekalai Vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and another Ms. G.Mini … for the appellant Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents August 07, 2026 [AKB] Item No.19 1. The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 05th January, 2026 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in WPA/351/2025. 2. The subject matter of the writ petition was an order dated 03rd May, 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District refusing to accept premium in respect of the said land for which license dated 21st December, 1988 was granted. Consequently the license would stand cancelled and the government would be entitled to resume the land. 3. It appears that the license was granted to the petitioner who was either in occupation of the land unauthorizedly, or for use of agricultural purposes and for constructing a house under a scheme dated 17th August, 1987. 4. The object and purpose of the scheme is to make available land to persons who do not possess any land for agriculture or residence. It was aimed that providing some source of sustenance and a roof on the head of the needy and deserving. 2 5. It appears from the records that petitioner neither constructed any house nor obtained demarcation of the land and there was no fencing thereon the same was reflected in a survey report of the year 2024 which finds mentioned in the impugned order before the Single Bench. 6. Ms. Mini, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently asserted that her client had paid conservancy tax sometime in the year 1994 and therefore, it may be presumed that there was a construction on the land in question. 7. This Court is of the view that an officer accepting tax under any head, may not in fact go on to inquire as to whether there is any construction on the property in question. 8. The said document therefore cannot come to aid of the petitioner. 9. This Court finds clear violation of Clause 1 of the license and the Administration was therefore justified in not determining any premium for the land to be paid. 10. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the premium may not have been assessed at all by the Administration, it appears that the first representation was made for assessment of premium in the year 2011 and thereafter in the year 2015 and 2018. 11. The land was found lying vacant in surveys conducted in the year 2013 and thereafter and finally in the year 2024. 12. In this facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner never needed the land in question and therefore left it vacant without use or occupation. 3 13. In the light of the above the impugned dated 03rd May, 2025 of the Single Bench calls for no interference. The Single Bench has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 14. Indeed it is true as held by the Single Bench that the decision making process can only be scrutinized by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds no fault in the decision making process. Even on merits of the decision as discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that no fault on the part of the respondents. 15. MAT/17/2026 fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)