Introduction:

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of equality, finality of judicial findings, and purposive interpretation of welfare schemes, the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair set aside an order rejecting tsunami compensation to Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd., holding that relief under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Package cannot be denied solely on the ground that the claimant is a company and not an individual farmer. The judgment was delivered by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray while deciding WPA/365/2025, filed by Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and another petitioner against the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and other authorities. The Court directed the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to reassess the claim and pay admissible compensation in accordance with the applicable policy within twelve weeks, observing that authorities cannot reopen or sidestep issues already conclusively settled by earlier judicial pronouncements, particularly where it had been repeatedly held that the petitioner-company was engaged in agricultural activities and functioned as a farming enterprise at the time of the devastating 2004 tsunami.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District, was ex facie arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and in direct contravention of binding judicial findings rendered in earlier rounds of litigation. The petitioners traced the long and chequered history of the dispute, submitting that the company was a lawful grantee of extensive agricultural land in South Andaman and was actively engaged in farming operations, including coconut and areca nut plantations, employing hundreds of workers at the time the tsunami struck in December 2004. It was contended that the tsunami caused catastrophic damage to plantations and infrastructure, resulting in losses exceeding ₹11 crore, which were duly assessed by inspection teams and partially acknowledged by the authorities themselves when an ex-gratia amount was initially sanctioned. However, the withdrawal of the sanctioned amount led to prolonged litigation, during which the High Court, in WPA 1304 of 2010, categorically held that the petitioner’s activities were agricultural in nature and that the relief scheme could not discriminate between “big” and “small” farmers. These findings, it was emphasized, were affirmed by the Division Bench and never set aside thereafter, thereby attaining finality and continuing to bind the administration.

The petitioners further argued that the Assistant Commissioner had virtually sat in appeal over these binding judicial determinations by rejecting the claim on the ground that the petitioner was a body corporate and that the scheme was meant only for small and marginal farmers. Such reasoning, it was submitted, amounted to judicial indiscipline and an impermissible reopening of settled issues. It was also contended that the authority erred in relying on the expiry of the land grant in 2014 to deny compensation, when the relevant date for determining eligibility was 2004, the year in which the tsunami occurred. On that date, the petitioner was undisputedly in lawful possession as a grantee, and subsequent developments could not retrospectively extinguish vested rights to compensation for losses already suffered. The petitioners pointed out that inspection reports and contemporaneous records clearly demonstrated the existence of agricultural plantations on the land, reinforcing their claim that they fell squarely within the ambit of the rehabilitation policy.

On the other hand, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration sought to justify the rejection order by contending that the Tsunami Rehabilitation Package was designed primarily to benefit small and marginal farmers and individual agriculturists, and that extending its benefits to a corporate entity would defeat the object of the scheme. It was argued that the petitioner-company was merely a grantee whose land grant had expired in 2014, and therefore it could not claim any continuing right or entitlement under the policy. The respondents further submitted that the scheme must be interpreted strictly, and since it did not expressly include companies, the authorities were justified in excluding the petitioner from its purview. According to the administration, the corporate character of the petitioner, coupled with the expiry of the land grant, disentitled it from claiming compensation under a welfare-oriented package meant for vulnerable farmers.

Judgment:

After carefully considering the rival submissions and examining the extensive record spanning multiple rounds of litigation, the Calcutta High Court unequivocally rejected the reasoning adopted by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the writ petition. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that the impugned order suffered from a fundamental legal flaw inasmuch as it attempted to reopen issues that had already been conclusively decided by the High Court in earlier proceedings. The Court observed that in WPA 1304 of 2010, it had been specifically held that the petitioner-company’s activities were agricultural in nature and that it functioned as a farming enterprise, and that no lawful distinction could be drawn between big and small farmers for the purpose of granting tsunami relief. These findings, having been affirmed by the Division Bench, continued to hold the field and were binding on the administrative authorities, who had no jurisdiction to disregard or contradict them.

The Court further held that the Assistant Commissioner’s reliance on the corporate character of the petitioner to deny compensation was legally untenable. It observed that welfare and rehabilitation schemes must be interpreted purposively, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved, namely, compensating those who suffered losses due to a natural calamity. Merely because the farming activity was carried out through a corporate vehicle did not alter the essential nature of the activity or the reality of the loss suffered. The Court noted that the petitioner employed hundreds of workers and carried out large-scale agricultural operations, and to deny compensation solely on the basis of its corporate form would amount to arbitrary discrimination unsupported by either the scheme or constitutional principles.

On the issue of expiry of the land grant in 2014, the Court categorically held that the relevant date for determining eligibility under the tsunami relief scheme was the date of the disaster in 2004. Since it was undisputed that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the land as a grantee at that time, subsequent expiry of the grant could have no bearing on the entitlement to compensation for losses suffered a decade earlier. The Court also took note of inspection reports and official records that confirmed the existence of coconut and areca nut plantations on the land, thereby substantiating the petitioner’s claim of agricultural loss.

Finding the rejection order dated 15.01.2025 to be legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and contrary to binding judicial precedents, the Court set it aside and directed the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to reassess the petitioner’s claim and pay admissible compensation under the policy dated 30.07.2012. The Court clarified that such payment would be subject to compliance with the policy condition requiring surrender of possession and directed that the entire exercise be completed within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order.