A.M. Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Ms. A. Mize, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, 5.

2. Notice has been served and none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6, although the office note dated 12.06.2014, shows that Mr. G. Tarak, had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and they had filed their affidavit-in-opposition.

3. Be that as it may be, this Court while passing this order do not propose to pass any adverse order against the respondent No. 6. It is deemed appropriate that the matter can be proceeded in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

4. The petitioner was allotted a plot of land measuring 500 sq mtr by the order of the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar dated 22.06.2006. It is stated that the approval was granted to 78(seventy eight) other different private individuals in the Capital Complex for a lease for a period of 30(thirty) years subject to the payment of land premium and annual lease rent as fixed by the Government.

5. It is stated that amongst the aforesaid 78(seventy eight) private individuals, the petitioner is also one of them who was allotted 500 sq mtr of land. After allotment of land, the petitioner was issued Land Allotment Pass Book bearing No. NLG-10/286/2006, dated 19.02.2006.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner has been paying the required land revenue and premium for the plot of land allotted to him and photocopies of the land payment receipt are available in page 26 of the writ petition. It is stated that accordingly, the petitioner continued to pay the land revenue to the year 2011.

7. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that his allotted land was being encroached by the respondent No. 6 of the Rural Department and had constructed a house in the land of the petitioner by claiming himself to be a staff of the Tourism Department. Upon protest, the respondent No. 6 informed the petitioner that the land which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner had already been cancelled by the Government.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained the necessary information and came to know that the land that was allotted to them on 22.06.2006 had been cancelled by the order of the Directorate of Land Management dated 30.07.2007.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition had been filed with a prayer that the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.07.2007, be set aside and a direction be given for allotment of an alternative plot of land.

10. Ms. A. Mize, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities on the other hand, submits that the land which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2006 was in fact already allotted to the Tourism Department in the year 1995. The said land having been allotted to the Tourism department in the year 1995, the same plot of land could not have been allotted to the petitioner in the year 2006. Hence, it is submitted that the same is sufficient enough to justify the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid cancellation was made by the Land Management Department upon the complaint received from the Director of Tourism that the land that was earlier allotted in their favour had been allotted to the petitioner.

11. But on the other hand, Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.07.2007, may have been passed, but the same was made behind the back of the petitioner and without serving him with any copy of the same and nor the petitioner was given any opportunity of being heard before the impugned order of cancellation was passed.

12. It is the contention of Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that having been duly allotted with a plot of land and the petitioner having been