The main legal point established is that a landowner may be required to obtain NOC for land development activities in accordance with the notification empowering the Chief Estate Officer, and the respondent must consider the grant of NOC in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Taba Tokur, learned Standing Counsel for the Chief Estate Officer, who is the sole respondent in this writ petition.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been directed by the respondent vide communication dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure-P/4) to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Department of Wildlife Warden and Public Works Department (PWD) Doimukh Division in response to his letter of intimation dated 11.09.2020 to the Estate Officer informing him that he had decided to do some plantation and other development activities over his land apart from construction of approach road from Itanagar-Jote main road near Ganga Lake towards his land at any appropriate time.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute and lawful owner of the private plot of land measuring about 50,000 Sqmtrs located at Lor-Putung/Ganga Lake, Itanagar and that he possesses a Land Possession Certificate i.e. LPC No. DC/LM/LPC160/05 dated 10.12.2015 and also Non-encumbrance certificate No. DC/LM/LPC-160/05 dated 16.11.2015 issued in his favour by the competent authority. When the petitioner informed the respondent about his intention to develop his land, the respondent authority has redirected him to the Department of Wildlife Warden as well as to the PWD for obtaining NOC from them.

4. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no requirement in law for the petitioner to obtain authorisation or NOC before developing his own land which was issued under a valid LPC. However, as per convention, the petitioner intimated the respondent authority informing him about his intention and the respondent authority in turn had asked him to approach the Department of Wildlife Warden and the PWD which was otherwise not at all called for.

5. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003 (Act of 2003) submits that the State Government by a notification published in Official Gazette appoints an Estate Officer and whose primary duty is to evict un-authorised occupants over Government land. In the present case, the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant and that he is in lawful occupation of his own land which was issued to him in the form of LPC by the competent authority. Therefore, the respondent authority could not have directed the petitioner to obtain NOC from the Department of Wildlife Warden and PWD. Referring to the notification dated 07.01.2020 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the learned counsel submits that the said notification cannot have any legal sanction. He submits that the same being in the form of an instruction, it cannot prevail over the right of the petitioner for peaceful enjoyment of his land which he holds in the form of LPC and which is issued under the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement Records) Act, 2000 and Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement Records) Rules, 2012 (herein referred to as the Act of 2000 and Rules of 2012 respectively).

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pre-requisites for being issued a LPC is a written consent from the adjacent private land owner and also from the village Head Gaoh Burah. The petitioner upon obtaining such pre-requisites, he was issued the LPC and therefore, no further NOC either from the Department of Wildlife Warden or from the PWD would be required. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has every right to peaceful enjoyment of his land since right to property although not a Fundamental Right is a Constitutional and Human Right. In the support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities

(i) T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Versus Town Planning Member and Another, (2006) 8 SCC 502,

(ii) Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Versus Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals LTD and others, (