JUDGMENT
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.95 passed by U.C. Banerjee, J, in C. O. No. 129 (W) of 1994. The appellant had filed the writ application for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb or interfere with his possession in respect of a land measuring an area of 6,000 square metres situate behind survey No. 78 at Guptapara village, Ferrergunge Tahsil, South Andaman. According to the petitioner, he was brought in the said Island in the year 1951. The petitioner allegedly is continuing in possession. The basis of the claim made on behalf of the petitioner in the writ application was that he had filed an application for regularisation of his encroachments in terms of a scheme framed by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration.
2. It is admitted that no order regularising his encroachments has yet been passed. The petitioner has raised questions in the writ application which are essentially questions of fact. Unless and until the encroachment made by the petitioner is regularised, he cannot become a tenant under the Administration so as to derive the statutory rights as a tenant, and thus the question of this court’s declaring the petitioner as a tenant of the respondents does not and cannot arise.
3. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner has merely filed an application for regularisation of the encroachments made by him whether he fulfils the conditions laid down under the scheme or not, is essentially a question of fact. Such an order can be passed by a competent authority only after, making investigation into his claim.
4. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot usurp the functions of the authority constituted under the said scheme. If and when, the said authority upon consideration of the petitioner’s application passes an adverse order, the petitioner may have a cause of action to seek judicial review. As no such order has been passed, we are of the opinion that no relief as has been prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. However, Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondents assured us that the petitioner’s application for regularisation, if any, would be considered, and an appropriate order thereupon shall be passed at an early date and preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order.
5. Mr. Talukdar points out that such an application is required to be considered by a high power committee, but such committee is now not in existence. We are informed at the Bar that such a high power committee was constituted for the purpose of consideration of the applications for regularisation which were pending at the relevant time, but upon disposal of all such cases, the committee has been dissolved. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District, is the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned clarification, we request the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District to consider the petitioner’s application for regularisation of his encroachments strictly in terms of the scheme framed by the respondent Administration, at an early date and preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order, upon giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place all materials as also an opportunity of being heard.
6. In the event the application filed by the petitioner is not traceable, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may itself be treated to be an application for the said purpose. The petitioner may, therefore, file a copy of the writ application before the Deputy Commissioner, together with copy of this order at an early date.
7. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner to the effect that the respondents be directed not to disturb his possession is concerned, the same appears to be wholly misconceived. The petitioner had filed a writ application earlier. B.P. Banerjee, J, by an order dated 21.1.94 directed the respondents to initiate a proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, within a period of 3 months from the date of the said order. Admittedly, no such proceeding has yet been initiated. The respondents have stated that they would not evict the petitioner by show of force. In law, as is well known, nobody can be. evicted by force. Even a trespasser can be evicted only upon adopting the procedures in accordance with law. As noticed herein before, B.P. Banerjee, J, had already directed the respondents to initiate a proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. If and when such a proceeding is initiated, it goes without saying, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all contentions therein. Even if an adverse order is passed against him in the said proceedings, an appeal is maintainable as against the said order in terms of section 9 of the said Act.
8. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitioner’s apprehension of being dispossessed is wholly misconceived in law.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the observations made hereinbefore, but without any order as to costs.
10. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
Devendra Kumar Jain, J.
11. I agree.