DHAN DEVI Vs. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner a recorded co - tenant of plots of land bearing survey No.1 having an area of 1.96 Hectare (Hilly) situated at village Bimblitan and also the land bearing survey No. 156 having an area of 1.6282 Hectares (Paddy -II) situated at village Sippighat both under Port Blair Tehsil has challenged the order passed on 15th April, 2013 by the Sub -Divisional Officer, South Andaman, Port Blair, the respondent No. 3, in exercise of the powers vested under section 151 (1) (a) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short "1966 Regulations") directing ejectment of the petitioner from the plots of land in question and directing the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District, the respondent No. 4 to make necessary correction in the land records and to takeover physical possession of the land. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 29th July, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District the respondent No. 2 confirming the order dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the respondent No.3.

(2.) It appears from the record that the matter was taken up on 05th August, 2013 when direction was issued to file affidavits and an order of status quo with regard to the possession, nature and character of the suit property was directed to be maintained by the parties until further orders. The petitioner was also restrained from transferring the disputed plot of land till the disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Mandal learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Administration relying on the affidavit -in -opposition had submitted that since the petitioner had chopped off eight meters of a portion of the hilly area and had reclaimed the sea causing harm to the marine life and birds and had developed the plot of land in question, the orders passed are just and proper. Submission was the petitioner should have availed herself of the compensation for the similarly placed Tsunami victims instead of carrying out the filling up of the land. Further since an application was filed for permission, the petitioner could have waited for its outcome. Moreover, necessary permission was also required under Regulation 47 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mines and Minerals Rules, 2012. However, on a query it was submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner had attempted development of the plots of land for carrying out real estate activities.