Sunil Saha & Others vs Lieutenant Governor & Others

Debangsu Basak, J

An order dated December 24, 2018 passed by the respondent no.5 cancelling the status of the petitioners as 'settlers' is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners got embroiled with a land dispute with the neighbours. A suit with regard thereto is pending before the Civil Court. As a counter-measure, the neighbour complained to the authorities that the petitioners are not 'settlers'. Purporting to act on such complaint, the respondent no.5 initiated a complaint whereupon, the respondent no.5 passed the impugned order. He submits that, the impugned order is perverse as the impugned order proceeds on the basis that, a document enumerating the persons who were settled, do not contain the name of the father of the petitioners. He submits that, neither such document was produced before the respondent no.5 nor was a copy of the same made available with the case records of the respondent no.5. Consequently, the petitioners did not have any opportunity to deal with such document. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the father of the petitioners was brought by the government as 'settler' from the mainland with the comment 'land not assured'. The first petitioner studied initially at a school in Port Blair and subsequently, at Billiground, Middle Andaman. Therefore, there was no material before the respondent no.5 to cancel the status of the settler of the petitioners.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the Administration submits that, the case records are with him. He submits that, the status of the petitioners is in dispute. The father of the petitioners was not settled in these islands and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim themselves as settlers. The writ petitioners did not challenge the cancellation order. He supports the impugned order. In the event the Court is pleased to remand the matter, then it should be to the respondent No.2.

The petitioners claim themselves to be 'settlers' by virtue of their father being brought to these islands as a 'settler'. The issue is whether the petitioners are to be treated as 'settlers' or not was considered by the respondent no.5 on a complaint received by the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 by the impugned order dated December 24, 2018 cancelled the status of the petitioners as 'settlers' and directed all documents disclosing the petitioners are settlers should be cancelled. By such order, the respondent no.5, however, directed that the petitioners should be treated as 'permanent inhabitants' of the islands.

On perusal of the impugned order dated December 24, 2018, it can be discerned by such order the status of the petitioners as 'settlers' were canceled. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the cancellation order is not under challenge cannot be accepted.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have taken a stand that, the name of the father of the petitioners is not available in the list dated April 20, 1966 and March 26, 1968, according to which, the persons were settled/brought to the islands under the rehabilitation scheme during the year 1968. It, however, proceeds to state that the elder brother of the first petitioner was, brought under the rehabilitation scheme to these islands, but no land was allotted to him as he was unmarried and as he was in employment.

The document spoken of in the affidavit in opposition by the respondents are not available on record. The petitioners are entitled to meet those documents before the appropriate forum.

In such circumstances, the impugned order dated December 24, 2018 of the respondent no.5 is quashed.

The prayer of the administration that the respondent no.2 should decide the issue on remand is accepted.

The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the proceedings afresh without being prejudiced by any of the observations made herein. No doubt, the respondent no.2 will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also to the complainant and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the parties he has heard forthwith thereafter.

It is made clarified that till a decision is arrived at by the respondent no.2, the petitioners will be treated as the same category as was obtaining prior to the impugned order dated December 24, 2018 for all purposes.

WP No.017 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.