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

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
SHRI YIGO BAM @ MIGO BAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
W.P. (C) 525 (AP) of 2015
Decided on : 10-05-2018

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rintu Saikia, Mr. K. Lolen, Mr. L. Nochi, Ms. C.D. Thongchi, R. Bori and I. Bagra, Advocates
For the Respondent:T.T. Tara, Mr. K. Jini, Ms. G. Ete, T. Gadi, D. Loyi, Ms. B. Picha, Ms. S. Ketan, Mr. G. Ngomdir, Mr. J. Jini, Mr. G. Bam, Mr. G. Kato and M. Rime, Advocates

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Assam Frontier Regulation, 1945 - Section 46 - Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000 - Ancestral family property - land possession certificate - Writ petition it is projected that ancestral family property was equally divided between two brothers who became owner of land measuring sq meters and was forefather of petitioner said land falling in share of was equally divided amongst his three since deceased is father of petitioner and upon his death share of was inherited by petitioner and it is further projected that in year and petitioner had allowed respondent son of to construct his dwelling house on land of petitioner on temporary basis on assurance that he would shift as and petitioner wanted - Held, This Court petitioner is left with yet another opportunity to challenge cancellation of LPC competent authority - If so advised and As per office note as authorities have made a note in note sheet of concerned file that petitioner herein can always come up for review/appeal under Assam Frontier Administration of Justice Regulations in opinion of this Court petitioner has alternative remedy and this Court is not inclined to use discretionary powers under Article of Constitution of India for deciding issue raised in present writ petition in view of alternative remedy available and observed in preceding - This Court is inclined to provide that if any appeal and/or any other proceeding is filed by petitioner within a period of one month from today petitioner shall be entitled to claim exclusion of period time from date of filing of present writ petition till outer period from one month of this order as time consumed for bona fide litigating before this Court as provided under of Limitation Act and petitioner shall be permitted to agitate points/issues raised in present writ petition in such appeal and/or any other proceeding and there shall also be no bar for petitioner to avail any other remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law and for reasons indicated above - This writ petition fails and there shall be no order as to cost and let records produced by Additional Deputy Commissioner West Siang District on be returned back to Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State respondents - Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents No. 1 and 3 as well as Mr. K. Jini, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. T. T. Tara, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

2. By this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order No. BSR/LK-176/14-15/Vol.III dated 09.11.2015, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar.

3. In this writ petition it is projected that the ancestral family property was equally divided between two brothers, namely, Lime Bam and Ligo Bam. Ligo Bam, who became the owner of Ampir Jhum land measuring 22,558 sq. meters, was the forefather of the petitioner. The said land falling in the share of Ligo Bam was equally divided amongst his three sons, namely, Gomi Bam, Gokar Bam and Goyi Bam. Goyi Bam (since deceased) is the father of the petitioner and upon his death, the share of Late Goyi Bam was inherited by the petitioner. It is further projected that in the year 1996, the petitioner had allowed the respondent No. 4, namely, Karmar Bam, son of Late Gokar Bam, to construct his dwelling house on the Ampir jhum land of the petitioner on temporary basis on assurance that he would shift as and whenever the petitioner wanted.

4. It was further projected that in the year 2002, one Yirik Bam, the son of Late Mayi Bam and grandson of Late Lime Bam had raised a boundary dispute in respect of the Ampir jhum land of the petitioner. Accordingly, a village Keba was held on 04.04.2002 and the dispute was settled in the presence of Head Gaon Burah, other Gaon Burahs and the village elders, etc. of Bam village. Accordingly, proper boundary was demarcated by the Village Keba in respect of the land of the petitioner. The said decision of the village Keba held on 04.04.2002, was stated to have attained finality. In the due course, the petitioner applied before the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar for issuance of a land possession certificate ('LPC' for short) after observing all formalities i.e., after obtaining NOC from Head Gaon Burah, other Gaon Burahs and the owners of the land situated in the adjoining four boundaries of the petitioner. It is projected that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar by an order dated 16.01.2015, directed the concerned R.K. and two chainmen to conduct spot verification of the petitioner's land meant for residential purpose. It was projected that accordingly, the concerned land management staff had prepared the sketch map and the same was approved by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, had thereafter issued a LPC bearing No. BSR/LM-LPC-251/2011-12 dated 12.02.2015, certifying that land/area measuring 22,558.00 sq. meters as described therein was in possession of the petitioner. The four boundaries of the said land were also described therein. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 2,406/- as royalty/ revenue in respect of the said land through treasury challan dated 10.02.2015.

5. Thereafter on 27.10.2005, the respondent No. 4 had submitted an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar for cancelling the LPC dated 12.02.2015 issued to the petitioner on the ground that the said LPC was issued without proper notice and that the Ampir jhum land was their clan's ancestral property. Hence, a prayer was made for holding a village level Keba to decide the dispute. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint by the respondent No. 4, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar by an order dated 09.11.2015, directed the Head Gaon Burah, Village Bam-III to conduct a village level Keba on any suitable date and time for amicable settlement of the case.

6. Against the said order dated 09.11.2015, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Additional Deputy Comm

































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