Tsunami Relief Can't Be Denied To Farming Company Solely For Being Corporate Entity: Calcutta HC Orders Andaman Admin To Pay Compensation

The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair has set aside an order rejecting tsunami compensation to Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd., holding that relief under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Package cannot be denied merely because the claimant is a company and not an individual farmer. The Court directed the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to reassess and pay admissible compensation in accordance with the applicable policy within twelve weeks.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed that the authorities could not reopen issues that had already been settled by earlier judicial findings, particularly the determination that the petitioner-company's activities were agricultural in nature and that it functioned as a farming enterprise. The Court noted that these findings had been affirmed up to the Division Bench and continued to hold the field.

The petitioners had challenged an order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District, which rejected their claim for compensation arising from the devastating 2004 Tsunami. The authority had reasoned that the company was merely a grantee whose land grant had expired in 2014 and that the relief scheme applied only to “small and marginal farmers,” thereby excluding a body corporate.

Tracing the chequered history of the dispute, the Court recorded that the petitioner held leasehold rights over extensive agricultural lands and was engaged in farming activities employing hundreds of workers. Following the tsunami, it claimed losses exceeding ₹11 crore. Though an ex-gratia amount was initially sanctioned, it was later withdrawn, leading to a series of litigations and directions by the High Court to assess and compensate the losses in accordance with law. The matter had travelled through multiple rounds before the Single Bench, Division Bench and even the Supreme Court, which ultimately asked the petitioner to challenge the latest rejection order before the High Court.

On examining the impugned order, the Court found that the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner was a company and thus not eligible under the scheme meant for small and marginal farmers. However, the Court noted that this very issue had earlier been addressed in WPA 1304 of 2010, where it was specifically held that the petitioner's activities were farming in nature and that no lawful distinction could be drawn between “big” and “small” farmers for the purpose of relief. The Division Bench had affirmed those findings, and the Administration could not disregard them without any subsequent reversal.

The Court further observed that the relevant date for determining eligibility was 2004, when the tsunami struck, and it was undisputed that the petitioner was then in lawful possession of the land as a grantee. The expiry of the grant in 2014 had no bearing on entitlement to compensation for losses suffered a decade earlier. Records, including inspection reports, also indicated the existence of coconut and areca nut plantations on the land.

Holding that the rejection order was legally unsustainable, the Court set aside the order dated 15.01.2025 and directed the Administration to pay admissible compensation under the policy dated 30.07.2012, subject to compliance with the policy condition requiring surrender of possession. The payment is to be made within twelve weeks.

Case Title: Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor & Ors.

Case: WPA/365/2025

Click here to read order