DILIP CHOWDHURY Vs. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition is pending for quite sometime before this Court. In fact, the same was filed in the year 1984 challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th August, 1984 whereunder such Tahsildar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands LR & LRR, 1966 ordered to evict the petitioner from alleged encroachment of an area comprising of 965 sq. mtrs considering that such encroachment is fresh one. It was reported to him that the petitioner hereunder was intended to construct a pucca retaining wall as shown in the sketch map enclosed and started constructing a temporary structure thereon or fenced on the Government land measuring an area 965 sq. mtrs adjacent to survey No.865 situated at Junglighat. This writ petition is pending for quite sometime before this Court. In fact, the same was filed in the year 1984 challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th August, 1984 whereunder such Tahsildar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands LR & LRR, 1966 ordered to evict the petitioner from alleged encroachment of an area comprising of 965 sq. mtrs considering that such encroachment is fresh one. It was reported to him that the petitioner hereunder was intended to construct a pucca retaining wall as shown in the sketch map enclosed and started constructing a temporary structure thereon or fenced on the Government land measuring an area 965 sq. mtrs adjacent to survey No.865 situated at Junglighat.

(2.) According to Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner that such order was passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opporutnity of hearing while an order passed by the Judicial Secretary in second appeal remanding the matter for fresh hearing by the Tahsildar is still pending.

(3.) None appears on behalf of the respondent authorities. Affidavit-in-reply is in the record. But no affidavit-in-opposition is available in the record. I called upon Mr. Mukherjee to supply a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition to enable to come to a conclusion in this respect wherefrom I find that relevant part of such copy of affidavit is paragraph 17, 18, 21, 32 and 39.