A. LALA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS writ petition is pending for quite sometime before this Court. In fact, the same was filed in the year 1984 challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th August, 1984 whereunder such Tahsildar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands LR and LRR, 1966 ordered to evict the petitioner from alleged encroachment of an area comprising of 965 sq. mtrs considering that such encroachment is fresh one. It was reported to him that the petitioner hereunder was intended to construct a pucca retaining wall as shown in the sketch map enclosed and started constructing a temporary structure thereon or fenced on the Government land measuring an area 965 sq. mtrs adjacent to survey No. 865 situated at Junglighat. This writ petition is pending for quite sometime before this Court. In fact, the same was filed in the year 1984 challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th August, 1984 whereunder such Tahsildar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands LR and LRR, 1966 ordered to evict the petitioner from alleged encroachment of an area comprising of 965 sq. mtrs considering that such encroachment is fresh one. It was reported to him that the petitioner hereunder was intended to construct a pucca retaining wall as shown in the sketch map enclosed and started constructing a temporary structure thereon or fenced on the Government land measuring an area 965 sq. mtrs adjacent to survey No. 865 situated at Junglighat. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner that such order was passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opporutnity of hearing while an order passed by the Judicial Secretary in second appeal remanding the matter for fresh hearing by the Tahsildar is still pending. ( 3 ) NONE appears on behalf of the respondent authorities. Affidavit-in-reply is in the record. But no affidavit-in-opposition is available in the record. I called upon Mr. Mukherjee to supply a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition to enable to come to a conclusion in this respect wherefrom I find that relevant part of such copy of affidavit is paragraph 17, 18, 21, 32 and 39. Affidavit-in-reply is in the record. But no affidavit-in-opposition is available in the record. I called upon Mr. Mukherjee to supply a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition to enable to come to a conclusion in this respect wherefrom I find that relevant part of such copy of affidavit is paragraph 17, 18, 21, 32 and 39. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 17 it has been admitted by the authority concerned in respect of the possession of two strips of land measuring 42,474 sq feet each one under the Registered Sale Deed and the other by virtue of allotment stated to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner. There is also an admission in respect of order of remand as made by the Judicial Secretary to the Tehsildar for decision based on his findings and documents placed before him by the appellant. ( 5 ) THE respondent authorities further stated that the respondent No. 2 i. e. Tehsildar could not take up re-trial of the cases as the case files were not traceable. It is also stated in paragraph 21 that the petitioner started grabbing more area in addition to three strips of land as stated earlier in the petition by reclaiming land situated between low and high water level since 1976 and the respondent No. 2 has considered it as a fresh encroachment when the petitioner has raised concrete wall with hollow bricks by occupying further area unauthorisedly. ( 6 ) IT further appears that in paragraph 32 therein that the petitioner, in fact, unauthorisedly occupied an area of 965 sq. mtrs including area covered by the concrete wall, in addition to three strips of land unauthorisedly occupied earlier. Hence the respondent No. 2 had acted bonafide according to law and within his lawful powers. In paragraph 39, the respondent contended that the licence issued by the Deputy Commissioner, subsequently, confines to permission to the petitioner's deceased father to construct Saw Mill on Plot No. 111 but not to occupy any additional land. ( 7 ) SUCH lawful powers means, even according to such respondent itself, section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. ( 8 ) IT appears from the averments made by the respondent in the affidavit that the disputes is in respect of the additional plot of lands. ( 7 ) SUCH lawful powers means, even according to such respondent itself, section 202 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. ( 8 ) IT appears from the averments made by the respondent in the affidavit that the disputes is in respect of the additional plot of lands. Therefore, unless and until the authority concerned is satisfied on the basis of the fact in respect of the total land in question it is very difficult to come to a conclusion about alleged unauthorised occupation of an additional land subsequently by the petitioner. In this respect it is to be remembered that the petitioner is occupying land measuring 965 sq. mtrs allegedly over and above the land in question which he received by way of purchase in the year 1953 or by licence in the year 1955. Since purchase was occurred in the year 1953 and licence was given in the year 1955 whether any additional land occupied newly or not is to be investigated thoroughly since the possession is the last word so far the land law is concerned. It is very difficult to ascertain the position in the year 2000 in respect of the legality or validity as the same are happened in the year 1953 or 1955 or subsequent thereto nor it is prudent to decide such issue ignoring the right of the petitioner either by the Court or by the Administration without giving any opportunity of hearing and by passing an order interfering with the possession by demolition or otherwise. In such case, if ultimately it is decided by the authority that such demolition or interference with the possession of the petitioner is not lawful compensation in the eye of law is obvious. ( 9 ) COMING back to the section 202 of the concerned Regulation I find therein that any person who unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession of any un-occupied land or abadi may be summarily ejected by an order of the Tehsildar etc. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, a question can come in the mind of the Court that when the law is specific to the extent whether the Court will interfere with the same or not. But may the Tehsildar summarily eject a person from the land in question unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession means may or may not but subject to the satisfaction. But may the Tehsildar summarily eject a person from the land in question unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession means may or may not but subject to the satisfaction. 'may' can not be equated with 'shall'. There should be an inference to the extent that it has been rightly or wrongly in the possession of the person concerned. In other words there should be a finding that the possession of the land was unauthorisedly under the occupation of the petitioner. Unless and until such decision come forward, the order should have been declared illegal, devoid of material particulars and also without following the principles of audi alteram partem. ( 11 ) MR. Mukherjee relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 (Smt. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.) in paragraphs 57, 58 and 61. The ratio of such judgment is as follows :-"although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is a great humanising principle, intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be : does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected? the law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil nonsequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. " ( 12 ) FURTHER judgment was cited by Mr. Mukherjee which is reported in AIR 1987 SC 71 (Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna and Ors.) in paragraph 16. There also it has laid down that the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. ( 13 ) THEREAFTER he has also relied upon paragraph 30 of (1993)1 SCC 78 (C. B. Sautam v. Union of India and Ors.) to establish that the observance of principles of natural justice is the pragmatic requirement of fairplay in action. ( 13 ) THEREAFTER he has also relied upon paragraph 30 of (1993)1 SCC 78 (C. B. Sautam v. Union of India and Ors.) to establish that the observance of principles of natural justice is the pragmatic requirement of fairplay in action. ( 14 ) I have no doubt about it that principles of audi alteram partem is primary need of the natural justice unless the same is fulfilled, it is very difficult for an authority to come to an appropriate finding. The heaven will not fall upon the Tehsildar if he gives an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass such order when scope of giving such opportunity is hidden under the Regulations itself in so many words, if the law can be read properly and justifiably in the light of the various judgments as pointed out before. ( 15 ) APART from that, Mr. Mukherjee tried to convince this Court on the basis of the judgment reported in 1996 (1)CLJ 497 (N. Raghavan Pillai v. Union of India and Ors.) wherein a Division Bench held that ordinarily writ Court should not interfere in a matter when alternative remedies under the statute are there against the misdeeds of the respondents, but it is well settled that existence of alternative remedy under the statute is not always an absolute par is moving the writ Court if the impugned order and/or notice as challenged in the writ petition is ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary. ( 16 ) SINCE Mr. Mukherjee has cited a judgment of the Division Bench and to give respect and maintain judicial discipline, I have quoted the judgment hereunder but is needless to say that such principles is well settled by now. ( 17 ) MR. Mukherjee concluded his submission by citing a decision reported in 2000 (1) Judgment Today 426 (The Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Mrs. Chandrima and Ors.) in paragraphs 42 and 43 to establish that even in the field of public law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under private law, compensation can be granted. ( 18 ) IN effect he wanted to submit that since the house has already demolished and if ultimately the Court directs the authority concerned to re-hear the matter and if he succeeds there, be will be entitled for the compensation following the theory or the judgment. ( 18 ) IN effect he wanted to submit that since the house has already demolished and if ultimately the Court directs the authority concerned to re-hear the matter and if he succeeds there, be will be entitled for the compensation following the theory or the judgment. ( 19 ) UPON hearing the petitioner and upon going through the respective affidavits, I have no hesitation in my mind that the petitioner is entitled to an appropriate order and thus the writ petition succeeds. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar on 7th August, 1984 being annexure-G to the writ petition. I direct the Tehsildar to re-hear the matter upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing taking into account of total land in question of the petitioner either by way of purchase or by way of licence or as reported as unauthorised or not in the light of the judgment of this Court as well as per the direction of the second appellate authority i. e. Judicial Secretary as on 18th March, 1976 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and pass a reasoned order thereon. ( 20 ) FOR the purpose of effective adjudication, a copy of writ petition along with annexures as well as supplementary affidavit and other affidavit-in-opposition and reply can be placed before such authority. ( 21 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and orders. There will be no order as to costs. In any event such order as to costs will not prevent the petitioner in praying compensation from the authority if ultimately succeeds in the proceedings. Xerox certified copy of this Judgment, it applied for, be delivered by the parties within 7 days from the date of putting requisites. Petition disposed of.