1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/286/2026 Harashit Mondal and others Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. Vijay Kumar … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent September 25,2026 [AKB] Item No. 19 1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are the joint recorded tenants in respect of land comprised in Survey Nos. 281/1, 281/2, 281/3 and 282, measuring 0.4269 hectares, 0.0300 hectares, 0.0200 hectares and 1.0600 hectares respectively, classified as agricultural land, house site and commercial land, all situated at Subashgram Village under Diglipur Tehsil, North and Middle Andaman District. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that Respondent No. 2 issued a permit in favour of one Samar Mondal of Village Subashgram, permitting him to excavate earth to the extent of 500 cubic metres from land comprised in Survey No. 273/4/6, situated in the said village, vide DC’s Permit No. 20261010ECR0000000275 dated 28.01.2026. According to the petitioners, since their land is situated at a level lower than the adjoining road, the said Samar Mondal requested them to permit him to dump the excavated earth upon their land. The petitioners, accordingly, accepted such proposal. 2 4. The petitioners, however, subsequently received notices from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, directing them to appear on 01.04.2026 in connection with Revenue Case No. 8/MM/DCM/2026/766. In the said notice, it was alleged that the Tehsildar, Diglipur, had submitted a report alleging that the petitioners had illegally dumped about 85 cubic metres of earth upon the land comprised in Survey No. 282. 5. Thereafter, several notices were issued by Respondent No. 2 fixing different dates for hearing. According to the petitioners, however, the matter could not effectively be heard. The petitioners submitted a written reply dated 09.04.2026 before the Deputy Commissioner, specifically contending that they had not violated any provision of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, and prayed for dropping of the proceeding. 6. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued another notice dated 21.04.2026, bearing RC No. 14/MM/DCM/2026/934, fixing 24.04.2026 as the date of hearing. In response thereto, the petitioners appeared before Respondent No. 2 and requested that they be supplied with a copy of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Diglipur, so that they might examine the allegations contained therein and submit an effective and comprehensive reply. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners that such report was not supplied to them and, consequently, they were denied a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations made against them. 3 7. It further appears from the materials placed before this Court that the report submitted by the Tehsildar contained a substantially different allegation, namely, that the petitioners had allegedly dumped approximately 3,200 cubic metres of earth upon the land comprised in Survey No. 282. Thus, the petitioners were required to meet an allegation substantially different in nature and magnitude from the allegation of dumping 85 cubic metres of earth referred to in the earlier notice. Despite the petitioners having specifically requested for a copy of the report, no such report was furnished to them before the impugned order was passed. 8. Thereafter, on 27.04.2026, Respondent No. 2 passed Order No. 38, whereby petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to deposit a fine of Rs.6,39,600/- each, while another joint recorded tenant, namely, Harekrishna Mondal, was directed to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/-. 9. Having considered the rival contentions and the materials available on record, this Court finds substance in the grievance of the petitioners. It appears that the Tehsildar, Diglipur, conducted an inquiry and submitted a report forming the basis of the revenue proceeding and the ultimate imposition of penalty upon the petitioners. Once such report constituted the foundation of the proceeding and was relied upon against the petitioners, elementary principles of natural justice required that a copy thereof be furnished to the petitioners and that they be afforded a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to controvert the allegations and materials contained therein. 4 10. The right of hearing cannot be reduced to a mere formality. An effective opportunity of hearing necessarily postulates that the person against whom an adverse order is proposed to be passed must know the material upon which the authority proposes to rely and must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to deal with such material. In the present case, the petitioners had specifically requested a copy of the Tehsildar’s report for the purpose of submitting an appropriate objection. Nevertheless, the report was not supplied to them before the impugned order was passed. The denial of the report, particularly when the allegation regarding the quantity of earth allegedly dumped had itself undergone a substantial variation, deprived the petitioners of a fair opportunity to effectively defend the proceeding. 11. In such circumstances, the impugned Order No. 38 dated 27.04.2026 cannot be sustained, having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioners an effective opportunity to meet the material relied upon against them. 12. Accordingly, for the purpose of effective and proper adjudication of the revenue proceeding, Respondent No. 2 is directed to furnish to the petitioners a complete copy of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Diglipur, concerning the allegation of dumping of earth upon the land comprised in Survey No. 282. 13. The said report shall be supplied to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Upon 5 receipt of the report, the petitioners shall be at liberty to submit their detailed reply/objection thereto within one week thereafter. 14. After receipt of such reply, Respondent No. 2 shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as all other concerned parties. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and all questions on merits are left open for consideration by the competent authority. 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and directions, Order No. 38 dated 27.04.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties upon payment of requisite fees. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )