JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. 1. This writ application along with the connected application was heard by me whilst I was in circuit in Port Blair between 11th December, 2023 and 22nd December, 2023. As the hearing was concluded at the end of the circuit, I directed the papers to be sent to the Principal Seat for delivery of judgment. 2. The papers reached me very recently. Immediately, I directed rehearing of the matter. Accordingly, the applications were reheard on 20th March, 2024. 3. Now, I turn to the facts of this case which are these: On 15th May, 1959 the petitioner company (the writ petitioner), with the permission of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, acquired a grant from the original grantee of about 1300 acres of land in the North Bay area of the South Andaman district. This grant was for a period of 30 years from 1956. 4. This was under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulations, 1926 which were replaced by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966. 5. The writ petitioner carried on the business of owning and exploiting a plantation there. 6. On 1st January, 1985 a fresh grant was made in favour of the writ petitioner for a period of 30 years. It expired on 31st December, 2014. 7. According to the writ petitioner, on expiry of the tenure, they were entitled to an automatic renewal of the lease for another 30 years. This is disputed by the respondent administration. 8. Since they did not recognize such right, the writ petitioner filed a civil suit (Title Suit No. 169 of 2014) before the learned judge (senior division) at Port Blair for a declaration of the above alleged right and for an order of injunction restraining the respondent administration from dispossessing them. 9. The suit is still pending with a status quo order maintaining the writ petitioner’s possession. Admittedly, now the writ petitioner is in possession of the land. 10. On 26th December, 2004 a gigantic tsunami hit the Andaman and Nicobar islands. It came with such suddenness, force and magnitude that it terrified the whole nation. Nothing of this kind was seen by our country before or after. Thousands died. Property worth crores was damaged. The government saw it as a natural calamity. The saline flood waters submerged the said land of the writ petitioner. It came with such suddenness, force and magnitude that it terrified the whole nation. Nothing of this kind was seen by our country before or after. Thousands died. Property worth crores was damaged. The government saw it as a natural calamity. The saline flood waters submerged the said land of the writ petitioner. They claimed to have lost crops which were growing in an area of 54.85 hectares causing them substantial loss of about Rs.11 crores. 11. The Central government allotted Rs.821.88 crores for the Andaman and Nicobar islands under the “Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package for Tsunami Affected Areas” to compensate the persons whose properties were damaged by the catastrophe. The loss was to be assessed by and compensation distributed by the respondent administration. 12. It is now necessary to make ourselves acquainted with the Policy decision of the Central Government dated 30th July, 2012 to pay compensation for the land in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands sub-merged during the tsunami in 2004. The material parts of the above policy are as follows: “2. The payment will be made @Rs.9,39,000/- per hectare in respect of 1136.44 hectare of submerged land for which specific options from their owners have been received by the UT Administration for payment of compensation in cash in lieu of the submerged land. 4. Before making compensation, UT Administration will further ensure that: i) The beneficiaries who get compensation in lieu of submerged land surrender the land for which compensation is paid; and ii) The persons who have claimed compensation have not encroached any Government/forest land in any of the Islands under the A&N Islands.” 13. The respondent administration made an enquiry into the loss suffered by the writ petitioner and assessed it at Rs.7,67,900/-. They paid that amount to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had claimed the total loss at Rs.11,16,88,514/-. After giving credit to Rs.7,67,900/-they made a claim for the balance Rs.11,09,20,614/-. 14. By a notification dated 6th January, 2006 the respondent administration revoked this decision and demanded refund of the said sum paid. The ground was it was paid by mistake. The aid was meant for small farmers only. 15. This was challenged by the writ petitioner in a writ application (WP 1304 of 2010). On 13th July, 2012 the writ was allowed by quashing the demand. The amount of Rs.7,67,900/-paid was to be treated as ex gratia. 16. The ground was it was paid by mistake. The aid was meant for small farmers only. 15. This was challenged by the writ petitioner in a writ application (WP 1304 of 2010). On 13th July, 2012 the writ was allowed by quashing the demand. The amount of Rs.7,67,900/-paid was to be treated as ex gratia. 16. An appeal preferred from this order (FMA 005 of 2013) was dismissed by the division bench on 4th March, 2013 affirming the order of the learned single judge. 17. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered on 4th March, 2013 affirming the judgment of the learned single judge made on 13th July, 2012 it was clearly declared that the respondent in the appeal (the writ petitioner herein) was eligible to be considered for grant of compensation negating the contention of the respondent administration that the compensation was payable to marginal farmers and similarly situated persons only. The court held that the government in its policy could not and did not make any distinction between small farmers and big plantation owners marginalised persons or large companies carrying on extensive business in inter alia owning and maintaining plantations. Compensation was payable to all if damage to property could be proved. 18. When the order of the division bench was not complied with by the respondent administration the writ petitioner moved another writ application (WP 328 of 2015). It was heard along with two other writ applications (WP 252 of 2015 and WP 399 of 2016). On 9th June, 2017 those writ applications were disposed of by me directing the respondent administration to reassess the claim for compensation as claimed in the writ application of 2010 within three months of communication of the order. 19. On 7th March, 2018 the writ petitioner filed an application with the respondent authorities in terms of the said order of this court dated 9th June, 2017. 20. The present writ (WPA 189 of 2022) was filed for consideration of the said application dated 7th March, 2018. 21. 19. On 7th March, 2018 the writ petitioner filed an application with the respondent authorities in terms of the said order of this court dated 9th June, 2017. 20. The present writ (WPA 189 of 2022) was filed for consideration of the said application dated 7th March, 2018. 21. In order to understand the scope and effect of this writ application, I would first of all set out the main prayers in the writ petition:- “a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them to dispose of application filed on 7th March, 2018 by disbursing compensation along with interest in terms of order dated June 9, 2017 passed in W.P. No. 328 of 2015; e) Appropriate order and/or directions be passed directing Respondents to disburse the balance compensation of Rs.11,09,20,614/-(Rupees eleven crores nine lacs twenty thousand six hundred and fourteen only) with interest till the date of payment to the Petitioners within such time and/or on such terms as to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances.” 22. In support of the writ application, an interim application (CAN 1 of 2022) was moved praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities and each one of them to disclose on affidavit before this Hon’ble Court all circulars, guidelines, notifications or any other instrument or declaration or publication or direction relating to payment of compensation to persons affected by Tsunami payable under any nomenclature like compensation or relief fund or ex-gratia payment etc. (b) A suitable person be appointed by a Special Officer and/or Receiver to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioner in terms of such circular along with interest @ 12% p.a. or such other rates as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court from the date of entitlement of the petitioner with further direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of such amounts as determined to the petitioner within a time bound manner.” 23. The issue sought to be raised now by the respondent administration through Mr. The issue sought to be raised now by the respondent administration through Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate that being a large incorporated company engaged in large scale plantation business the writ petitioner is not eligible to be considered for compensation, which was only made for small time farmers and other marginalised persons has been finally decided by the division bench of this court on 4th March, 2013 and is not open for any decision by the respondent administration, as rightly contended by Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, senior counsel for the writ petitioner. 24. The respondent administration also contends that the writ petitioner is not the owner of the land. In the Island no individual ownership of the land was recognised by the government or administration. Use of the land was granted to the individuals by inter alia a lease or grant, by the respondent administration. On a proper interpretation of the policy of the Central Government, reference to owner of the land in the island could only mean the lessee or grantee. It could never be the government because the government could not pay compensation to itself. 25. According to the respondent administration, since the writ petitioner is a trespasser after expiry of the grant, they are not entitled to compensation. It is true that the grant expired in 2013 but on that ground the writ petitioner cannot be made ineligible for the claim in as much as when the tsunami hit the island the writ petitioner was a grantee under the government or administration and suffered loss and damages as correctly submitted by Mr. Banerjee. 26. It will also not be open to the administration to consider whether after expiry of the grant the writ petitioner is able to deliver possession of the land to the administration. This is for the reason that ever after expiry of the grant the writ petitioner is in possession of the land in question by virtue of the said status quo order of the learned civil court. They are in a position to deliver possession of the property to the respondent administration. 27. Therefore, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration is directed to assess the compensation payable to the writ petitioner under the above policy. It is required to only assess the amount of compensation that is payable after treating the sum of Rs.7,67,900/-already paid as ex gratia. They are in a position to deliver possession of the property to the respondent administration. 27. Therefore, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration is directed to assess the compensation payable to the writ petitioner under the above policy. It is required to only assess the amount of compensation that is payable after treating the sum of Rs.7,67,900/-already paid as ex gratia. The decision shall be arrived at by the administration after giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file written submissions together with supporting documents after hearing them and by a reasoned order. The administration shall within four weeks of communication of this order make available to the writ petitioner all memoranda, circulars, orders and exchange of communication (which are not stated to be confidential between the Central Government and the administration). Within three weeks of receipt of such documents the writ petitioner will be at liberty to file written submissions together with supporting documents with the respondent administration. The respondent administration will thereafter hear the writ petitioner and pass a reasoned decision within two months of receipt of the written submissions. The above directions are peremptory. In making the determination the respondent authority shall not consider the following:- (i) Whether the writ petitioner is the owner of the land? It is to assume that they are the owners. (ii) Whether the writ petitioner as a large plantation owning company is eligible for compensation? They are to assume that they are eligible to receive compensation. (iii) Whether on expiry of the grant the writ petitioner is eligible to receive compensation? It is to assume that the writ petitioner is eligible to receive compensation, as grantee on the date of the tsunami, on the footing that they had suffered loss and damage at that time. (iv) The respondent administration will not go into the question whether the writ petitioner is in a position to deliver possession of the land to the administration. It is to assume that the writ petitioner is in possession of the land and is in a position to deliver its possession to the administration. 28. The writ application and the connection application are thus disposed of by this order. 29. Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis upon compliance of necessary formalities.