JUDGMENT : TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to allot the land bearing survey No. 4/3, measuring an area of 2.20 hectares and the land bearing survey No. 4/4, measuring an area of 0.14 hectare situated at Ram Krishna Pur village, Little Andaman Tehsil, South Andaman District (in short, the said land) in favour of the petitioner by issuing licence and to record the said land in the name of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that 125 families including the petitioner were brought to Andaman and Nicobar Islands for settlement as per the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme and were settled at Ram Krishna Pur village, Little Andaman Tehsil, South Andaman District, providing them lands under the settlement scheme with the assurance that they will be provided with licence pertaining to their respective lands in due course of time. The petitioner was provided the said land and she is occupying the same till date, however, the respondents did not take any step towards formal allotment of the said land in her favour by issuing licence though such licence has been issued in favour of settlers similarly situated with the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, she approached the authorities by submitting representations and on the basis of the same, a revenue case being R.C no. 257 of 1996 was initiated in which the respondent no. 5 submitted a proposal for allotment of the said land in her favour. On the basis of such proposal, the respondent no. 3 also issued a memo dated 3rd February, 2000 observing that the petitioner had sufficient proof of being a settler. Even thereafter no steps were taken by the authorities to issue licence and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being WP No. 008 of 2006 and by an order dated 5th June, 2006, the petitioner's claim was relegated to the respondent no. 3 for consideration. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent no. 3 passed an order on 10th August, 2006 rejecting the petitioner's claim. 3 for consideration. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent no. 3 passed an order on 10th August, 2006 rejecting the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a title suit being T.S No. 36 of 2012 and the same was decreed on 31st March, 2014 and the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land was declared and it was also decreed that the petitioner is the settler as per the Government of India Scheme and the defendants therein were restrained permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land. In spite of such declaration and direction, appropriate steps were not taken by the respondents to issue licence by way of allotment of the said land and to correct the record of rights upon incorporation of her name therein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. He further submits that it is obligatory upon the respondents to abide by the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court. When the petitioner's right, title and interest over the said land has been declared by the competent Civil Court and when the said judgment and decree has not been appealed against by the Administration and when the same has in fact been accepted by the respondent no. 3 through issuance of a memo dated 15th May, 2017, the respondents are bound to allot the said land in favour of the petitioner. 4. The matter was heard by this Court on 1st February, 2018 when Mr. Mandal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents/Administration prayed for an accommodation to avail necessary instruction. Today, Mr. Mandal has produced before this Court a report of the respondent No. 5. Let the same be kept on record. He submits that as factual disputes are involved in the matter, the writ petition needs to be decided upon exchange of affidavit. 5. Indisputably, the respondent no. 5 submitted a proposal towards allotment of said land in favour of the petitioner. The said document is annexed to the present writ petition at page 32. In the same, it has inter alia been observed as follows:— “As per rehabilitation schemes she is entitle to get 2.02 hects of Agriculture lands and 0.14 hects Home State Land. 5 submitted a proposal towards allotment of said land in favour of the petitioner. The said document is annexed to the present writ petition at page 32. In the same, it has inter alia been observed as follows:— “As per rehabilitation schemes she is entitle to get 2.02 hects of Agriculture lands and 0.14 hects Home State Land. As such a proposal for allotment of 2.02 hects Agriculture land and 0.14 hects Home State Land is proposed for allotment in favour of Smti. Satibala Mondal w/o Late Nittayananda Mondal R/o of Ram Krishna Pur Village.” 6. Upon perusal of the said proposal and the sketch map prepared, the respondent no. 3 by a memo dated 3rd February, 2000 observed as follows: “Smt. Sati Bala Mondal, w/o Nityananda Mondal, r/o Little Andaman came as a settler from Mana Camp in Madhya Pradesh way back in 1973. She has sufficient proof of being a settler and had settled in Little Andaman. As per the scheme for settlement, the settlers were to be allotted 300 hects of agriculture land. It has also been gathered that the proposal to allot 2.02 hects of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 4/3 in R.K Pur and 0.14 hects of house site in Survey No. 4/4 in R.K Pur was submitted by Tehsildar, Little Andaman in the year, 1996. The land is still available. The said proposal was submitted by Tehsildar, Little Andaman to Assistant Commissioner on 3-10-1996 vide R.C No. 257 of 1996. The revenue case may be located and put up for orders of the competent authority.” 7. Surprisingly thereafter the respondent No. 3 passed an order on 10th August, 2006 totally contrary to the earlier order dated 3rd February, 2000 passed by his predecessor in office. In the said order dated 10th August, 2006 it was observed inter alia as follows: “It is evident that the petitioner by trying to claim herself as a settler is actually trying to get the land, which is an encroachment committed by her son in the year 1995/96, somehow regularized in her favour. The petitioner or her son (who is the encroacher over the land as per records) have no right, title or interest over the land and therefore, action as deemed fit can be instituted by the Tehsildar, Little Andaman to vacate the encroachment over government land following due process of law. The petitioner or her son (who is the encroacher over the land as per records) have no right, title or interest over the land and therefore, action as deemed fit can be instituted by the Tehsildar, Little Andaman to vacate the encroachment over government land following due process of law. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the discussions and findings in this order.” 8. Challenging the said order dated 10th August, 2006 and seeking a declaration of her right, title and interest over the said land, the petitioner preferred the Title Suit No. 36 of 2012 in which the following issues were framed for consideration:— “1. Whether the plaintiff is a Settler as per the Scheme of Govt. of India? 2. Whether the plaintiff was allotted any land in these Islands as per the scheme of Settlement? 3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 1972-1973? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree of settler? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get licence in respect of the suit land?” 9. By judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2014 all the said issues were decided in favour of the petitioner and it was ordered as follows: “That the instant suit be and the same is decreed ex-parte against all the defendants.- The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled property is hereby declared. It is further decreed that the plaintiff is the Settler as per the Govt. of India Scheme in these Islands for the year 1972-73. The defendant authorities are hereby restrained permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled property.” 10. The respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5 herein were parties to the Title Suit No. 36 of 2012. The judgment and decree passed in the said suit was not appealed against and it has attained finality among the parties inter se and thereafter the respondent no. 3 by a memo dated 15th May, 2017 issued a specific direction restraining the respondent no. 5 from disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the said land. 11. It appears from the report produced before this Court today that the respondent no. 3 by a memo dated 15th May, 2017 issued a specific direction restraining the respondent no. 5 from disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the said land. 11. It appears from the report produced before this Court today that the respondent no. 5 has expressed his reluctance to record the name of the petitioner in the said land since the initial encroachment of the land was committed by the son of the petitioner and that the son of the petitioner is already a joint recorded tenant in respect of land bearing survey No. 11 measuring 2.02 hectare situated at Rabindra Nagar village and that the petitioner did not come to the islands under the Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government and as such she has no right to avail licence and cannot claim for incorporation of her name in the record of rights pertaining to said land. The reason towards denial of the petitioner's claim stands disclosed through the said report and as such there is no requirement to call for any further affidavit from the respondents which would unnecessarily lengthen the litigation. The observations made by the respondent no. 5 in the said report are mere reiteration of the observations made by the respondent no. 3 in the order dated 10th August, 2006. The said order dated 10th August, 2006 was considered in Title Suit No. 36 of 2012 and it was held that the petitioner is a settler as per the scheme of Govt. of India and that the petitioner was allotted the said land as per the scheme of settlement. The observations made in the report of the respondent no. 5 thus being contrary to the findings of the learned Civil Court are not sustainable. It is well settled that any order passed by an authority in derogation to the order of the Court is a nullity [See judgment delivered in the case of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs., reported in 2010 (4) Supreme 519 ). 12. It is well settled that any order passed by an authority in derogation to the order of the Court is a nullity [See judgment delivered in the case of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs., reported in 2010 (4) Supreme 519 ). 12. The executive functionaries are under an obligation to comply with the judgment delivered by the competent civil forum and as the petitioner's right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land has already been determined and declared by the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2014 passed in T.S No. 36 of 2012, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and question of relegation of the matter to the authorities again for reconsideration does not occasion [See the judgment delivered in the case of Government of India v. B. Anil Gupta, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 419 ]. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to allot the land bearing survey No. 4/3, measuring an area of 2.20 hectares and the land bearing survey No. 4/4, measuring an area of 0.14 hectare situated at Ram Krishna Pur village, Little Andaman Tehsil, South Andaman District in favour of the petitioner by issuing licence and to record the name of the petitioner in the record of rights pertaining to the said land. 14. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 15. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 16. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.