The main legal point established is the requirement for authorized Estate Officers to issue eviction notices and orders under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003, and the importance of following due process and providing fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Ms. T.Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department representing the respondent No. 3.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that his residential house in Liru Village, Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh has been demolished pursuant to impugned notices dated 17.04.2023, 19.05.2023 and by order dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, without considering the submission made by him through his reply dated 24.04.2023 and without providing the petitioner any opportunity of fair hearing, which is in violation of the provision of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003 (in short the Act 2003).

3. The basic case of the petitioner is that the first notice dated 17.04.2023 was issued by one Extra Assistant Commissioner on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali and subsequent notice dated 19.05.2023 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, himself and the order of eviction dated 31.05.2023, was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, himself which is not permitted under the Act, 2003 inasmuch as from the notice dated 19.05.2023, it is clear that entire action has been taken on the basis of the Act, 2003.

4. Referring to the Sections 3 and 4(i) of the Act, 2003, Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only an Estate Officer is empowered to issue notice and the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act, 2003. Therefore, the entire action is without jurisdiction and, is liable to be set aside.

5. It is the further case urged by Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the eviction notices were issued, an action was taken pursuant to such notice by Deputy Commissioner, the same disentitled the Deputy Commissioner to entertain an appeal and makes the petitioner remediless inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 12 of the Act, 2003, himself is the appellate authority. That being the position, the petitioner having no alternative efficacious remedy had to approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if assuming that the Deputy Commissioner is having any power, the mandate to be followed under Section 4(i) of the Act, 2003, has neither been followed nor the notices does reflect any reason to evict the petitioner. The procedure required to be followed under Section 5(i) of the Act, 2003, while considering the claim of the petitioner has not also been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner had filed his objection on 24.04.2023 and the eviction order does not reflect any finding required to be recorded under Section 5(i) of the Act, 2003.

7. Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents fairly and candidly submits that in terms of the Section 3 of the Act, 2003, the State of Arunachal Pradesh has already notified Estate Officer in the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner in different districts. However, in the case in hand, as there was no Estate Officer in the district, therefore, in a compelling circumstances, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, issued the notice. However, they concede that the Deputy Commissioner in the scheme of the Act, 2003, shall have no power either to issue notice or to issue an eviction order in exercise of power as an Estate Officer inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act, 2003.

8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties