20 years after tsunami: Calcutta High Court rules ‘corporate’ label can’t block disaster relief

“If the petitioner is desirous of surrendering their possession in favour of the administration, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation in respect of the relevant land being damaged due to a natural calamity which took place in the year 2004,” the court observed.

Background

• The legal battle stems from the catastrophic natural disaster of December 26, 2004, which caused extensive damage to 54.85 hectares of land where the petitioner conducted farming activities.
• The petitioner claimed that he was carrying out farming activities over the said lands and provided employment to more than 500 workers.
• In January 2005, the petitioner submitted three applications claiming damages to the tune of Rs 11 crores in respect of the losses suffered during the tsunami.
• The Andaman administration initially granted an exgratia payment of Rs 7.67 lakh to the petitioner; however, it was later withdrawn.
• Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a plea against it, and in 2012, the court directed the administration to assess and compensate the petitioner’s losses in accordance with the law.
• However, the administration filed a plea before the division bench against the single judge’s order, but the bench affirmed the finding of the single judge.
• Despite the court order, the litigation over the damage claim went on, involving multiple petitions, division bench pleas, and a direction from the Supreme Court to adjudicate the legality of the latest rejection order dated January 15, 2025.
• Following this, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court, challenging the administration‘s rejection of the claim, where the apex court directed the petitioner to approach the high court and seek adjudication on the legality of the January 15, 2025, order on its own merits.

Administration’s stand

• Sumit Kumar Karmakar, counsel appearing for the administration, has submitted that the petitioners are not the owners of the land nor are they recorded tenants.
• He further argued that the petitioner was merely a grantee whose grant expired long ago, and it is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for.

Findings

• The petitioner company’s activities in farming have been dealt with by the coordinate bench by an order dated July 13, 2012, which stated that the petitioner is also a farmer, though registered as a company under the Companies Act.
• The record shows that the administration has admitted the possession of the petitioner company on the relevant land till 2014.
• The compensation has been prayed for on account of the tsunami which took place on December 26, 2004.
• The petitioner had the said land as a grantee before the tsunami.
• The order dated January 15, 2025, also discloses that the petitioner was the recorded tenant in respect of the subject land.
• From the documents submitted by the administration, it appears that an inspection in respect of the subject land has been carried out by the administration.
• The report disclosed that, as per documents made available by the party, including photographs of standing crops/trees, it can be presumed that ‘there existed a scientifically spaced and managed coconut and areca nut plantation on the subject land’.
• As the administration has already admitted that the grant of the petitioner expired in 2014, it is indirectly admitted that in 2004 the company had possession of the subject land.