SATI BALA MONDAL Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to allot the land bearing survey No.4/3, measuring an area of 2.20 hectares and the land bearing survey No.4/4, measuring an area of 0.14 hectare situated at Ram Krishna Pur village, Little Andaman Tehsil, South Andaman District (in short, the said land) in favour of the petitioner by issuing licence and to record the said land in the name of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that 125 families including the petitioner were brought to Andaman and Nicobar Islands for settlement as per the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme and were settled at Ram Krishna Pur village, Little Andaman Tehsil, South Andaman District, providing them lands under the settlement scheme with the assurance that they will be provided with licence pertaining to their respective lands in due course of time. The petitioner was provided the said land and she is occupying the same till date, however, the respondents did not take any step towards formal allotment of the said land in her favour by issuing licence though such licence has been issued in favour of settlers similarly situated with the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, she approached the authorities by submitting representations and on the basis of the same, a revenue case being R.C. no. 257 of 1996 was initiated in which the respondent no.5 submitted a proposal for allotment of the said land in her favour. On the basis of such proposal, the respondent no.3 also issued a memo dated 3rd February, 2000 observing that the petitioner had sufficient proof of being a settler. Even thereafter no steps were taken by the authorities to issue licence and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being WP No.008 of 2006 and by an order dated 5th June, 2006, the petitioner's claim was relegated to the respondent no.3 for consideration. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent no.3 passed an order on 10th August, 2006 rejecting the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a title suit being T.S. No.36 of 2012 and the same was decreed on 31st March, 2014 and the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land was declared and it was also decreed that the petitioner is the settler as per the Government of India Scheme and the defendants therein were restrained permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land. In spite of such declaration and direction, appropriate steps were not taken by the respondents to issue licence by way of allotment of the said land and to correct the record of rights upon incorporation of her name therein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) He further submits that it is obligatory upon the respondents to abide by the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court. When the petitioner's right, title and interest over the said land has been declared by the competent Civil Court and when the said judgment and decree has not been appealed against by the Administration and when the same has in fact been accepted by the respondent no.3 through issuance of a memo dated 15th May, 2017, the respondents are bound to allot the said land in favour of the petitioner.