1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/130/2026 Shri Charwa Kujur Vs. The Executive Engineer (SAD) and Anr Mr. S. Golder … for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra … for the respondent nos.1&2 Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent no.3 September 1,2026 [SR] Item No.8 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer for grant of electricity connection on the land bearing Survey No.1/P. Specific submission of the petitioner is that he is in physical possession of the land in question. The authority has illegally and arbitrarily rejected his application with the remark that he has encroached the revenue land allotted to the Forest Department. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land is not forest land and the same is a revenue land. The petitioner is in actual possession of the subject land and is liable to be provided electricity connection till he is legally evicted from the said plot of land. 3. In support of such submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench dated 11th February, 2011 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, first of which isWP No.423 of 2010 ( Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs. The Superintending Engineer and another) 2 wherein the Court specifically held that the encroacher would be entitled to enjoy electricity if he is in settled possession of the same as long as he is not dispossessed by due process of law. 4. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of rejection and direct the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner. 5. Learned advocate representing the Electricity Department opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately quoted an incorrect survey number at the time of making the application seeking fresh electricity connection. On physical inspection, it has been found that Survey No.1/P mentioned by the petitioner in the application actually falls under the Survey No.153 which is a revenue land allotted to the Forest Department. 6. As per the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P(C) No.202/1995 (T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India and others), specific direction has been given to evict the encroachers. As the land in question is a forest land, non-forestry activity cannot be permitted at the said place. 7. Learned advocate representing the Forest Department has obtained specific instruction and submits that the land in question where the electricity connection has been sought was physically inspected and it has been found that it falls within the survey no.153, which has been allotted to the Forest Department. The Record of Rights of Survey No.153 has been produced before this Court wherefrom it appears that the same 3 is recorded in the name of the Government-Forest Department and the remarks column clearly mentions that the same is meant for ‘area of Teak, forest camp site (Barrack), teak plantation’. 8. It has been submitted that the petitioner was a part of the team which conducted the teak plantation in the forest area and now the petitioner intends to stay back in the area but the same is not permissible. The Forest department will not grant any permission to provide electricity connection at the subject place. 9. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court. Though the petitioner has disclosed that he required electricity connection in Survey No.1/P, but the subject land where the electricity has been sought for was physically inspected and it has been found that the same falls under survey No.153 which is a revenue land allotted to the Forest Department. 11. Record of Rights produced before this Court clearly indicates that the same is a forest land. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra) directs the authority to initiate steps for eviction of an encroacher from the forest land. 12. According to the Forest Department, notice of eviction was duly served upon the petitioner. The judgment of Abhimanyu Mazumdar (supra) relied upon by the petitioner does not deal with forest land where there is no scope for 4 providing electricity connection despite the encroacher remaining in possession of the same. 13. The forest land is particularly meant for forest purpose. The teak plantation has been made long ago. Proceeding for eviction was initiated by the forest authority, but the fate of the same has not been made known to the Court. 14. Submission of the petitioner that neighbours are enjoying electricity in the same plot of land cannot be a ground to direct the Electricity department to provide electricity connection over the plot of land which is recorded in favour of the Forest Department and the said department has strong objection for providing electricity connection on the said plot of land. 15. An issue has also been raised about the survey plot number where electricity connection has been sought. According to the petitioner, electricity connection has been applied in respect of plot No. P/1 but as per physical inspection by the department the plot is Survey No.153. 16. Disputed question of facts cannot be decided in the writ petition. 17. The physical inspection report clearly states that the land in question where electricity connection has been sought for is Survey no.153 recorded in the name of the Forest Department. The Court would rely upon the records produced by the department. 18. In view of the discussions made herein above, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of electricity connection cannot be allowed. The impugned order of rejection is not interfered with. 5 19. It will, however, be open for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Electricity Department the plot number where the electricity connection has been provided despite the same being recorded as forest land. On receipt of such information, the Forest Department shall take prompt necessary steps in accordance with law. 20. The writ petition stands dismissed. 21. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. )