IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the government's policy for compensation did not differentiate between small farmers and large plantation owners, and directed the administration to assess the compensation payable to the petitioner, disregarding certain considerations and assumptions.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. This writ application along with the connected application was heard by me whilst I was in circuit in Port Blair between 11th December, 2023 and 22nd December, 2023. As the hearing was concluded at the end of the circuit, I directed the papers to be sent to the Principal Seat for delivery of judgment.

2. The papers reached me very recently. Immediately, I directed rehearing of the matter. Accordingly, the applications were reheard on 20th March, 2024.

3. Now, I turn to the facts of this case which are these:

On 15th May, 1959 the petitioner company (the writ petitioner), with the permission of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, acquired a grant from the original grantee of about 1300 acres of land in the North Bay area of the South Andaman district. This grant was for a period of 30 years from 1956.

4. This was under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulations, 1926 which were replaced by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966.

5. The writ petitioner carried on the business of owning and exploiting a plantation there.

6. On 1st January, 1985 a fresh grant was made in favour of the writ petitioner for a period of 30 years. It expired on 31st December, 2014.

7. According to the writ petitioner, on expiry of the tenure, they were entitled to an automatic renewal of the lease for another 30 years. This is disputed by the respondent administration.

8. Since they did not recognize such right, the writ petitioner filed a civil suit (Title Suit No. 169 of 2014) before the learned judge (senior division) at Port Blair for a declaration of the above alleged right and for an order of injunction restraining the respondent administration from dispossessing them.

9. The suit is still pending with a status quo order maintaining the writ petitioner’s possession. Admittedly, now the writ petitioner is in possession of the land.

10. On 26th December, 2004 a gigantic tsunami hit the Andaman and Nicobar islands. It came with such suddenness, force and magnitude that it terrified the whole nation. Nothing of this kind was seen by our country before or after. Thousands died. Property worth crores was damaged. The government saw it as a natural calamity. The saline flood waters submerged the said land of the writ petitioner. They claimed to have lost crops which were growing in an area of 54.85 hectares causing them substantial loss of about Rs.11 crores.

11. The Central government allotted Rs.821.88 crores for the Andaman and Nicobar islands under the “Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package for Tsunami Affected Areas” to compensate the persons whose properties were damaged by the catastrophe. The loss was to be assessed by and compensation distributed by the respondent administration.

12. It is now necessary to make ourselves acquainted with the Policy decision of the Central Government dated 30th July, 2012 to pay compensation for the land in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands sub-merged during the tsunami in 2004. The material parts of the above policy are as follows:

“2. The payment will be made @Rs.9,39,000/- per hectare in respect of 1136.44 hectare of submerged land for which specific options from their owners have been received by the UT Administration for payment of compensation in cash in lieu of the submerged land.

4. Before making compensation, UT Administration will further ensure that:

i) The beneficiaries who get compensation in lieu of submerged land surrender the land for which compensation is paid; and

ii) The persons who have claimed compensation have not encroached any Government/forest land in any of the Islands under the A&N Islands.”

13. The respondent administration made an enquiry into the loss suffered by the writ petitioner and assessed it at Rs.7,67,900/-. They paid that amount to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had claimed the total loss at Rs.11,16,88,514/-. After giving credit to Rs.7,67,900/-they made a claim for the balance Rs.