VISHNU KRISNA Vs. ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24th May, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, whereby the Deputy Commissioner rejected the prayer of the petitioner for making correction of the revenue record. According to the petitioner, Late V. Sri Krishna, the father of the petitioners was recorded tenant in the landed property in survey No. 69 measuring an area of 3550 sq. mtrs. corresponding to new survey No. 153 measuring of 2200 sq. mtrs. situated at Haddo village in Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of late V. Sri Krishana. The petitioners submitted representation before the respondent No. 6 being the Patwary, Circle No 4, Port Blair Tehsil to correct the revenue record in their names as they are legal heirs of Late Sri Krishana in as much as said land does not stand recorded in their names. They also approached respondent No. 4, the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil for correction of the record. Subsequently, they submitted representation before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District for regularisation of the said landed property. Since no action was taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioners approached before this Court by filling a writ petition being No. 1308 of 2010 on 17.11.2011. Said writ petition was disposed of by directing the concerned authority to dispose of the, representation by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24th May, 2012 disposed of the representation dated 26th April, 2010 filed by the writ petitioner regarding the mutation of land bearing plot number 153 with an area 2200 sq. mtrs. situated at Haddo after giving an opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman passed a detailed order and rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner to make entry of their name in the revenue record in respect of 2200 Sq. mtrs. According to the said order, provisional record cannot be altered or changed under the provision of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land reforms Regulation, 1966. The said order further reveals that the Deputy Commissioner relied upon Section 91 of the Andaman and Nicobar Island Land Revenue and. Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 holding that every entry in the land records existing at the commencement of this Regulation and every entry made therein under this chapter shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th May, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The respondents have also filed affidavit - in -opposition; the reply thereto has also been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Bahadur, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land measuring 2200 sq. mtrs. in old plot No. 69 area 0.96 acre (3885 sq. mtrs.) corresponding to provisional survey No. 153 measuring an area of 2200 sq. mtrs stood recorded in the name of Shri Vishnu Krishna, son of late V. Sri Krishna, the father of the petitioners. After the death of their father, they applied for mutation, but the same was disallowed. It is further submitted that the entry of their father 's name in 1961 survey in connection with land at survey No. 153 of area 2200 sq. mtrs. is forthcoming, although the survey of 1961 has not yet been finally published and no declaration has yet been made in the official record that the said entry is erroneous. The Deputy Commissioner while complying with the order of this should have taken into consideration of the said entry of 1961 survey. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that they have got no document to establish the right over the said land so as to make entry of their name in the revenue record. On the close and careful perusal of the materials on records including the report of Deputy Commissioner, it transpires that the Deputy Commissioner while complying with the order of this Court with regard to the disposal of the representation in the matter of entry of their name in the revenue record did not at all consider the legal position of entry in 1961 record. Reliance was placed by the Deputy Commissioner on Section 91 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and thereby presumptive value of entry of 1926 record was held up and relying upon the said Section, the claim of the petitioners was refused. No substantial answer or reply is forthcoming from the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents.