The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer and the Deputy Commissioner under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 is limited to conducting a summary proceeding for the purpose of eviction of the unauthorized occupant from the public premises defined under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Govt. Advocate, representing respondents No. 3 to 6.

None appears for the respondent No.7.

2. This writ petition has been filed by making following prayers:-

(i) order dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, vide Memo. No. LM/DRJ-221/2011-12 be set aside,

(ii) order dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, vide No. LM/DRJ-221/2011-12 be set aside,

(iii) the recommendation made by DLAAB of 2005-06 to the private respondent No.7 for allotment of land to the private respondent No.7, vide order dated 18.01.2006 be set aside,

(iv) the Government approval order, dated 27.03.2006, vide No.LR-29/80 (Vol-II) in favour of Shri Pakbu Natam at serial No. 165, be set aside; and

(v) for a direction to rectify the excess occupied plot of land in terms of the Government Notification, dated 24.05.2012.

3. Although this writ petition has been filed making as many as five prayers as indicated above, yet Mr. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has confined his arguments in respect of the prayers No. (i) and (ii) only i.e., the order dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, vide Memo. No. LM/DRJ-221/2011-12 as well as the order dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, vide No. LM/DRJ-221/2011-12. Accordingly, the writ petition has been heard only to determine the extent of legality and validity of the impugned orders, dated 22.02.2012 as well as 07.10.2013 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo and the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District respectively.

4. In a land dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent No.7 with regard to a plot of land measuring an area of 160 sq. mtrs at Sigin Colony, Daporijo; the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum- Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, vide order, dated 22.02.2012, referred to above, had passed the following order:-

“1. The claim of the petitioner over the disputed plot of land is found to be justified.

2. The claim of the respondent could not be established as the respondent could not produce any documents in support of his claim.

3. Though it is well established that the plot of land in question is belongs to the petitioner, but considering the long occupation of the plot by the respondent, an opportunity is given to the respondent that if he wants to retain the said plot, he should arrange an alternate plot in Daporijo town within one month from the date of pronouncement of this order and failing which he is to vacate the plot enable the petitioner to occupy the allotted plot.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003. On the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, dated 22.02.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, in exercise of the powers conferred under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, vide order, dated 07.10.2013, had passed the following order:-

“1. The appellant Paksing Malling claim over the disputed land has no legal firmity as such there is no valid documents appears to me as ascertained the land in question is belongs to him, therefore claim is not justified in fact of law.

2. That in responsed to the appeal petition submitted by the appellant, the Estate Officer order and judgment to arranged alternative plot within one month is absolutely in valid as such local agreement is not concerned with the Govt. and there is no such provision under the Aru