Judgment : Soumitra Pal, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner a recorded cotenant of plots of land bearing survey No.1 having an area of 1.96 Hectare (Hilly) situated at village Bimblitan and also the land bearing survey No. 156 having an area of 1.6282 Hectares (Paddy-II) situated at village Sippighat both under Port Blair Tehsil has challenged the order passed on 15th April, 2013 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman, Port Blair, the respondent No. 3, in exercise of the powers vested under section 151 (1) (a) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short “1966 Regulations”) directing ejectment of the petitioner from the plots of land in question and directing the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District, the respondent No. 4 to make necessary correction in the land records and to takeover physical possession of the land. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 29th July, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District the respondent No. 2 confirming the order dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the respondent No. 3. It appears from the record that the matter was taken up on 05th August, 2013 when direction was issued to file affidavits and an order of status quo with regard to the possession, nature and character of the suit property was directed to be maintained by the parties until further orders. The petitioner was also restrained from transferring the disputed plot of land till the disposal of the writ petition. Mr. Jayapal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the order passed by the authorities had submitted that the land of the petitioner got submerged after the Tsunami which took place in 2004. Thereafter the petitioner had taken measures for improvement of the land under Regulation 2 (12) of the 1966 Regulations which in no way has changed the nature and character of the land and no permanent injury was caused to the plots of land as found in the impugned orders. Since after the Tsunami the land got submerged and was being reclaimed by the petitioner, it cannot tantamount to destruction. Rather the effort was to restore it for the purpose of using it for agriculture. Since after the Tsunami the land got submerged and was being reclaimed by the petitioner, it cannot tantamount to destruction. Rather the effort was to restore it for the purpose of using it for agriculture. Moreover as there is no scrap of evidence with regard to the allegation of development of the property for the purpose of real estate and thus the land was not used for any purpose other than that of agriculture, the orders are perverse. According to him as under the Regulation no permission is required for improvement and the land which was allotted for agricultural purpose is still being used for the same purpose, the orders under challenge have no foundation. It was also contended that the Appellate Authority, the respondent No.2 did not at all consider the grounds contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and had merely affirmed the order passed by the respondent No.3. Therefore, it was prayed that appropriate order may be passed for quashing the orders dated 15th April, 2013 and 29th July, 2013 passed by the authorities. Mr. Mandal learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Administration relying on the affidavit-in-opposition had submitted that since the petitioner had chopped off eight meters of a portion of the hilly area and had reclaimed the sea causing harm to the marine life and birds and had developed the plot of land in question, the orders passed are just and proper. Submission was the petitioner should have availed herself of the compensation for the similarly placed Tsunami victims instead of carrying out the filling up of the land. Further since an application was filed for permission, the petitioner could have waited for its outcome. Moreover, necessary permission was also required under Regulation 47 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mines and Minerals Rules, 2012. However, on a query it was submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner had attempted development of the plots of land for carrying out real estate activities. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner had caused destruction or permanent injury to the land in question and had attempted to use it for real estate purpose other than the purpose for which land was allotted i.e. agriculture. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Regulation 151 of the 1966 Regulations which are as under:- “151. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Regulation 151 of the 1966 Regulations which are as under:- “151. (1) A tenant shall be liable to be ejected from his holding by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, made on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) he has done any act which is destructive or permanent injurious to the land comprising the holding; or (b) he has used such land for any purpose other than that for which it was given; or (c) ….…… …… ………” In this context it is also appropriate to refer to the definition of ‘improvement’ under Regulation 2 of the 1966 Regulations which is as under: “2. In this Regulation, unless the context otherwise requires- (12) “Improvement”, in relation to a holding means any work which materially adds to the value of the holding and which is suitable thereto and consistent with the purpose for which it is held and included- (i) …….. ………. ……… (ii) the construction of works for the drainage of land or for the protection of land from floods or from erosion or other damage by water, (iii) the planting of trees and the reclaiming, clearing, enclosing, levelling or terracing, of land used for agricultural purposes,………..” It is to be noted that under Regulation 2 (12) “improvement” means “protection of land from floods or from erosion or other damage by water” and also includes “reclaiming, clearing, enclosing, levelling or terracing of land used for agricultural purposes”. Therefore, under Regulation 2 (12) a person can reclaim a land used for agricultural purpose. Hence, as the petitioner was reclaiming or levelling the land under the law, in my view it was for “improvement”. In this context it is worth mentioning that though Regulation confers power to improve the land and the petitioner had filed an affidavit stating she will develop the land for agricultural purpose, even after such statement in the said affidavit, the orders impugned were passed. Moreover, though in paragraph 3 (e) of the affidavit in opposition there is an allegation regarding the chopping off the hill of about eight meters in height, however, neither in the report dated 22.3.2013 prepared by the respondent No.4 nor in the order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 there is any mention with regard to the decimation of the hill. Thus as the petitioner was improving or leveling the land under Regulation 2 (12), in my view the impugned orders dated 15th April 2013 and 29th July, 2013 cannot be sustained. Further as no document in support of the allegation with regard to the development of property for real estate has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition and as on query the learned advocate for the respondent had submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the allegation of development of property for the purpose of real estate, impugned orders, in my view are also perverse. Hence order dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman, the respondent No. 3 and order dated 29th July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District the respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained and are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Accordingly the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to correct the record of rights by incorporating the name of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the certified copy of this order.