SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ITANAGAR BENCH
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Sojee Meyor - Petitioner
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 235 (AP) of 2014
Decided On : 08-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: D.K. Deori
For the Respondents: T.T. Tara, P. Pangu, B. Pathak, P. Taffo

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226/227 - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 6 and 4(1) - Acquisition of land - Grant of compensation - Dispute of ownership - Preliminary notification - Application has been filed under Article 226/227 Constitution of India for a direction to respondent to award compensation on preliminary notification Memo No. LM and another preliminary notification LRE for acquiring of land with further direction to respondents to pay rental charge for occupying private land of petitioner by defence personnel since 1962 - Case in nutshell-According to petitioner, he is occupying his ancestor land since days of his predecessors and army/defence has occupied private land of petitioner at during war between China temporarily for construction of Army camp with assurance they will get rent after war got over - But even after war got over Army/defence refused to vacate land as promised rather they kept extending camp area from time to time - Father of petitioner made an application to Circle Officer claiming compensation against area occupied by Army/de-fence, in year 1963 which yielded no result - After demise of petitioner’s father, mother of petitioner in year 1990 made similar prayer to Deputy Commissioner, District for payment of compensation and resettlement of land occupied by Army without acquiring land as per provision of Land Acquisition Act – Held, Petitioner him-self has failed to mention as to area occupied and has given a vague assertion that they are occupying land where Army continued to stay since time of war between India and China - So petitioner failed to assert his legal right which sought to be enforced by way of writ jurisdiction - Scope of under writ jurisdiction is limited until and unless there is infringement of any fundamental/legal rights of a citizen, scope of judicial cannot be invoked – Petitioner failed to make out a case so as to call for any interference in matter in absence of proof of ownership it is considered that respondent authority has not properly addressed issued relied by petitioner - Preliminary notification so issued by respondent authorities is no more operative as it has already been lapsed - No declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act has been made - Learned counsel by referring to observation so made by Supreme Court SCC it has been submitted Court should not compel Land Acquisition collector to pass award in respect of proceeding which has already lapsed - Such submission is liable to be sustained in given backdrop of case - Land Acquisition process already came to a halt immediately after publication of notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act as soon as several objections raised before respondent authority by different communities for which committee was also constituted to decide dispute of ownership over disputed land to which the petitioner is also a claimant - Situation claim of petitioner so made as regards grant of compensation cannot be considered and allowed – Petition stands disposed of

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Deori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. B. Pathak, learned CGSC, for respondent No. 5 and 7 to 10 as well as Mr. P. Taffo, learned ASG for respondent No. 6.

2. Present application has been filed under Article 226/227 Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent to award compensation on preliminary notification Memo No. LM-91/07/1083 dated 13.09.2007 and another preliminary notification LRE-5436/90/40462-63 dated 17.09.91 for acquiring of land at Walong and Kibithoo under Anjaw District with further direction to the respondents to pay the rental charge for occupying the private land of petitioner by defence personnel since 1962.

3. Case in nutshell-According to the petitioner, he is occupying his ancestor land since the days of his predecessors and the army/defence has occupied the private land of the petitioner at Walong under Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh in the year 1962 during the war between Indian and China temporarily for construction of Army camp with assurance that they will get the rent after the war got over. But even after the war got over Army/defence refused to vacate the land as promised rather they kept extending the camp area from time to time. The father of the petitioner Lt. Kring Meyor made an application to the Circle Officer claiming compensation against the area occupied by the Army/de-fence, in the year 1963 which yielded no result. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, mother of the petitioner Lt. Tenchi Meyor in the year 1990 made similar prayer to the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District for payment of compensation and resettlement of the land occupied by the Army without acquiring the land as per the provision of Land Acquisition Act. Despite submission of various applications for payment of compensation the authorities had failed to make payment of compensation neither they have paid any rent/hiring charges for occupying the private land of the petitioner. The Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh for the first time had issued preliminary notification in the year 2007 for acquisition of the land at Walong and Kibithoo for Union of India. Thereafter, no final notification or award was made to the owner of the land within the time specified under the Land Acquisition Act. In such backdrop, the petitioner has come forward with the petition before this Court with the following prayers:-

(a) To direct the respondents to award the compensation on preliminary notifications dated 17.01.1991 and 14.09.2007 issued for acquiring land at Walong and Kibithoo as till date no final notifications were issued and award made to the owner of the land on the basis of afore stated preliminary notification.

(b) To direct the respondents for payment of rent/hiring charges for illegally occupying the private land at Walong and Kibithoo by respondents in violation of the Land Acquisition Law and Constitution of India.

(c) To direct the respondents to settle the ownership dispute between various clan/clans/Sub-Clans and communities over the land under occupation of Army and Civil Authorities and land to be acquired.

(d) To direct the respondents to initiate Iresh land acquisition proceeding under the land acquisition law and to make payment of compensation for acquiring the private land by respondents at Walong and Kibithoo to the owners of the land.

(e) To direct the respondents from restraining and further occupying the private land and construction of permanent structure on the private land till the time fresh acquisition and compensation is paid for acquiring the land to the owners of the land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. In support of his claim, the Petitioner, has annexed various documents showing communication between the petitioner and the District Administration, A































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top