SISHIR BISWAS Vs. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 03rd February, 2014 vide No. 2 -6/R/2013/AC (SA)/333 issued by the sub - Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman where by the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj is directed to remove illegal occupation of the writ petitioner from the permanent shelter and to ensure peaceful possession of the permanent shelter to its original allottee Smt. Kholosha Biswas/ respondent No.5.

(2.) THE father of the writ petitioner Shyam Lall Biswas, was original settler who was brought to these islands under the relevant rehabilitation/colonization scheme of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. He was allotted the land appertaining to the survey No. 35, 38, 40 , 43 and 57 at Village Badmas Pahar, under Ferrargunj Tehsil. The said landed property now stands recorded in the name of Smt Kholosha Biswas, mother or the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, his mother, brother and sister were badly affected by Tsunami on 26th December, 2004. The administration thereafter allotted them the permanent shelter at Bdamas Pahad within Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman. The writ petitioner on 10th February, 2014 was served with the impugned order dated 03rd February, 2014 issued by respondent No.3 whereby the respondent No.4 has been directed to remove the petitioner from the aforementioned permanent shelter and to ensure peaceful possession of the permanent shelter to its original allottee. No notice was served upon the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order. The respondent No. 3 is has no jurisdiction to set the impugned proceeding in motion and the order passed is without jurisdiction. The principles of natural justice has not been followed. So the writ petition.

(3.) MR . Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended taking the tune of the writ petition. It is his specific contention that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the impugned proceeding and pass the order impugned. It is contended further that the writ petitioner was not given any notice in connection with the proceeding. The mobile phone No. recorded in the impugned order saying that the writ petition was informed and asked to be present during the proceeding. But the mobile phone No. do not belong to the writ petitioner. The impugned order may be interfered with and set aside. To substantiate his contention Mr. Jayapal has referred to the decision WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI, 1998 8 SCC 1.