J. RENGANATHAN Vs. TEHSILDAR, PORT BLAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Tehsildar rejecting his claim for mutation of 300 square meters of land comprised in survey No.63/1 situated at Haddo village in his favour. There was earlier a civil dispute in connection with the subject land and the petitioner, being the plaintiff in that suit claimed that one Ragavan Pillai, was bound to convey the said land in his favour on the basis of an agreement executed on 25.01.1991 between the petitioner and the said Ragavan Pillai. In the said suit, being suit No.2 of 1994, the original defendant was the said Ragavan Pillai. It appears that during pendency of the suit Ragavan Pillai had passed away and his widow Smt.Chellamma and other legal heirs were substituted as defendants in the said suit.

(2.) The petitioner, being the plaintiff was successful in the said suit and obtained a decree for specific performance from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Andamans. In pursuance of such decree a deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. The present proceeding arises on refusal on the part of the Tehsilar to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue/land records in respect of the subject land.

(3.) Submission of Mr.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tehsildar cannot override the decree of the Civil Court by refusing to effect mutation of the land in question in favour of the petitioner. Mr.Mandal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the land in question stands recorded in the name of Subash Dweep Colonization Multipurpose Society. There was a transaction between the said Society and Ragavan Pillai in respect of certain land including the land which is the subject matter of dispute in this proceeding and subsequently, the authorities invalidated the transaction between Ragavan Pillai and the said Society. As such, the land now reverts back to the said Society. Mr.Mandal argued that since Raghavan Pillai was not the recorded tenant in respect of the said land, the petitioner could not have derived any title in respect thereof from said Raghavan Pillai or his successors.