Tsunami Relief Cannot Be Denied Solely For Being A Company : Calcutta HC Orders Andaman Admin To Pay Compensation
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Calcutta Circuit Bench at Port Blair Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray has set aside an order of the disaster management authority rejecting tsunami-related compensation claimed under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Package by a private plantation company. The dispute arose from damage claimed to plantation land after the 26 December 2004 tsunami, and the administration’s decision to deny relief on the basis that the claimant was a company rather than an eligible individual farmer under the scheme. The Court directed the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to reassess the claim and pay any admissible compensation in accordance with the applicable policy, subject to required compliance, within twelve weeks.
The petitioners challenged an order dated January 15, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District, which rejected their claim for compensation under the Tsunami Relief Package and the Central Government’s policy dated July 30, 2012. The dispute arose from damages suffered to plantation lands during the 2004 tsunami. The petitioners, holding leasehold rights over several plots until December 31, 2014, claimed losses amounting to Rs. 11 crores.
The Administration initially sanctioned an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 7,67,900, which was later withdrawn. The petitioners contended that their farming activities provided employment to hundreds of workers and that they were entitled to compensation under the applicable policy. The Administration argued that the petitioners were not recorded tenants but grantees whose grant expired in 2014, and therefore not eligible. Evidence included inspection reports dated April 9, 2018, which recorded plantations of coconut and areca nut on the subject land. The Administration relied on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2005, which specified eligibility for small and marginal farmers.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray recorded: “Upon considering the facts and circumstances, it is evident that none of the documents which have been referred to by the respondents can establish that at the stage of creating a new post tsunami A &N Islands (after the devastation caused by the tsunami), the Administration took a policy decision, in accordance with law, that a distinction would be allowed between the rich and the poor and/or between the big farmers and poor farmers and even if such a decision had been taken, it would have been hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further stated: “In this case, the fact remains that the petitioner is also a farmer, though registered as a company under the Companies Act. Its activities are farming and therefore, it cannot be said that it is either a big farmer or a rich farmer or a more privileged farmer. The fact remains that it is a farmer dealing in farming activities and providing employment to at least 120 families who are receiving direct and regular employment from the petitioner-company.”
It was observed: “Nothing has been brought on record, save and except bald statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the Scheme was meant only for ‘small’ and ‘marginal’ farmers. In fact, Annexure R-1 is an office order No.1124 issued by the Deputy Commissioner setting up a Committee of Officials for different locations to assess the damages caused in the Ferrargunj Tehsil by the tsunami/earth quake on 26.12.2004. It does not say anywhere that the exercise would be confined within ‘small’ and ‘marginal farmers.”
The Court recorded: “Annexure R-2 appears to be a list of farmers but it does not throw any light nor lends any support to the respondents qua their arguments that the Scheme was for ‘small’ and ‘marginal’ farmers only and not for Companies. Annexure R-3 is also a document which does not lend support to their submissions as referred to above.”
It was further observed: “The record shows that the Administration has admitted the possession of the petitioner company on the relevant land till 2014. The compensation has been prayed for on account of the Tsunami which took place on 26.12.2004. Admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the said land as a grantee prior to the Tsunami.”
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray directed: “In view of the above discussion, the order dated 15/01/2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District is set aside.”
“As the Administration has already admitted that the grant of the petitioner company expired in 2014, it is indirectly admitted that in 2004 the company had the possession over the subject land. However, whether the possession of the petitioner No.1 on the relevant land can be extended or not is the subject matter of the Civil Suit which this Court does not wish to interfere with and the learned Civil forum shall dispose of the said suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 15/01/2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District is set aside.”
“However, I direct the Administration to pay the admissible compensation to the writ petitioners in accordance with relevant rules subject to compliance of condition 4 (i) of the policy F.No. U-13018/1/2010-ANL dated 30.07.2012 within twelve weeks from the date of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. (through virtual mode), Mr. Asif Hussain, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Mr. Ajay Majhi
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
Case Title: Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Private Limited and Another vs. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor and Others
Case Number: WPA/365/2025
Bench: Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
