After a hearing that revisited two decades of litigation, the Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Port Blair has set aside a January 2025 order denying tsunami compensation to Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The court directed the Andaman Administration to release admissible compensation for losses suffered during the 2004 tsunami, subject to compliance with government policy conditions.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to the devastating tsunami of 26 December 2004. Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in coconut and areca nut farming, held grant-based possession of nearly 55 hectares of land across several villages in South Andaman.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Soon after the disaster, the company claimed that its plantations were destroyed and sought compensation of over ₹11 crore. While a small ex-gratia amount was initially sanctioned, it was later withdrawn. What followed was a long chain of writ petitions, appeals, and directions from the High Court, Division Bench, and even the Supreme Court, all centred on one question: was the company entitled to compensation under tsunami relief policies meant for farmers?
In January 2025, the Assistant Commissioner (Relief and Disaster Management) rejected the claim again, citing expiry of land grant and stating that only “small and marginal farmers” were eligible for relief.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate Aniruddha Chatterjee, appearing for the company, told the court that the administration was re-arguing issues already settled by earlier High Court rulings. He pointed out that previous judgments had clearly recognised the petitioner as a farmer engaged in agricultural activity, even though it was incorporated as a company.
On the other hand, the administration argued that the company was neither a landowner nor a recorded tenant, and that its land grant had expired in 2014. According to the government, this alone disqualified it from any compensation.
Court’s Observations
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray closely examined the long history of the dispute. The court noted that earlier High Court orders, upheld by the Division Bench, had already rejected the administration’s argument that companies could not be treated as farmers.
Referring to a 2012 judgment, the court recalled that it had been clearly observed that, “the petitioner is also a farmer, though registered as a company… its activities are farming and it provides employment to several families.”
The judge also found it significant that official inspection reports acknowledged the existence of “scientifically managed coconut and areca nut plantations” on the land before the tsunami.
Importantly, the court held that since the company was admittedly in possession of the land in 2004, when the tsunami struck, compensation could not be denied solely because the land grant expired years later.
The Decision
Setting aside the impugned order dated 15 January 2025, the High Court ruled in favour of the company. The bench directed the Andaman Administration to pay admissible compensation in accordance with the Central Government policy dated 30 July 2012.
However, the court clarified that the payment would be subject to compliance with Condition 4(i) of the policy, which requires surrender of possession of land to the administration.
“The order rejecting the claim cannot be sustained in law,” the bench observed, before directing that compensation be paid within twelve weeks.
With this, the writ petition was disposed of, bringing an end to a prolonged legal battle that began in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami.
Case Title: Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs Lieutenant Governor & Ors.
Case No.: WPA/365/2025
Decision Date: 05 February 2026
