1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/44/2025 The Lieutenant Governor and others Vs R.C. Kurup Alias M.Ramchandran Kurup and Ors. Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the appellants Ms. Preeja Menon … for the respondent no.1 Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent nos.2 to 5 Mr. Siddhartha Singha … for the added respondent September 23, 2026 [SR] Item No. 7 1. The lands recorded in the name of the writ petitioner were dug up in execution of some project by an agency of the government. The writ petitioner approached the writ court in such circumstances. 2. The writ court took note of the admitted position that the lands which were recorded in the petitioner’s name; and without any authority, the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) interfered with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands. 3. The writ court therefore disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: “4. In view of the admitted position that the land belonged to the petitioner and was unauthorisedly taken over by the APWD, the land is required to be restored as the petitioner is not willing to accept any compensation for the land being taken over by APWD. 2 5. On such consideration the writ petition is disposed of by directing the APWD and the Revenue Department to ensure that the land is restored to its original position and handed over to the writ petitioner within a period of two months from date. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in addition to the aforesaid relief, the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation for wrongful use of the said land. This cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding. Hence, the claim for compensation is not decided in this proceeding. It will be open for the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for compensation.” 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that if the land is required for public purpose, it is open to the government to take steps in the larger public interest. 5. We find such submission to be misplaced in the facts of the present case when the lands in question were not acquired. 6. The admitted position is that the petitioner is the owner of the lands in question; and that his name is recorded in the land records. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 7. The intra-court appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )