Calcutta High Court
WPA/407/2026 of SMTI.KANCHAN MONDAL Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS. on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/407/2026 Smt Kanchan Mondal Vs The Deputy Commissioner and others Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal … for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents October 01, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. The writ petitioner claims to be a decree
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
***
WPA/407/2026
Smt Kanchan Mondal
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner and others
Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal
… for the petitioner
Ms. Babita Das
… for the respondents
October 01, 2026
[SR]
Item No.1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The writ petitioner claims to be a decree holder in respect of a decree dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mayabunder in O.S.No.5 of 2018. The decree of partition was issued in favour of the writ petitioner.
2. He has approached the respondent no.1 with an application for sub-division of the property as contemplated under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 ( Regulation 1966 for short).
3. According to the writ petitioner, the sub-division is required as consequence of and in compliance of the decree. This Court is also informed that the decree was obtained ex parte and the defendants would be necessary parties in the sub-division proceedings before the respondent no.1. Learned advocate for the Administration thus submits that only after valid service of notice to the defendant in the suit, the sub- division would be processed.
4. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
5. It appears that the petitioner filed application for sub- division on 28.03.2025. This Court therefore requested the learned advocate for the Administration to take instructions. Upon instruction, she has submitted that the authority is likely to take another eight weeks in the process of sub-division.
6. In view of such stand/undertaking being expressed upon instructions, recorded herein above, pendency of the writ petition would serve no useful purpose and would be futile. Therefore, this Court disposes the writ petition in terms of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent authority recorded as herein above. This Court makes it clear that eight weeks shall commence form the date of receipt/production of copy of this order before the respondent no.1, for concluding the process, in accordance with law.
7. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )