Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Lhakpa Kigar S/o Late Karma Lera Kigar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 280 of 2022
Decided On : 20-11-2023
Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 - Section 40, Section 5 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice), Regulation 1945 and Section 2 (d) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 - The court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute over the land in question, as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mechukha, Shi-Yomi District, which held that a disputed land belonged to respondent no. 4. The petitioners claimed that the land was in their possession for four generations and that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the title and interest over the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had decided the dispute in favor of respondent no. 4 based on a Kebang decision dated 09.01.1987, which awarded the land Lame Nego to respondent no. 4. However, the dispute raised by the petitioners was in respect of a different plot of land called Daba Kigar, and the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner to decide the civil dispute over the land in question and the interpretation of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, which conferred jurisdiction to the customary court to take up civil disputes. The court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute over the land in question.
Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was set aside and quashed, and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo until they obtain appropriate orders from the appropriate authority/forum.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing counsel for the Rural Works Department, representing the respondent no. 1; Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Mr. T. Bayor, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
2. By instituting this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mechukha, Shi-Yomi District vide no. MKA/JUD-104/KEBGEN/2021 by which the land namely Lame Nego has been held to be belonged to respondent no. 4.
3. The brief case of the petitioners is that the family of the petitioners have been in possession of a plot of land located at Dorjeeling village, Mechukha, which is locally known as Daba Kigar since last 4 (four) generations. In the year 1987, Shri Pem Chonga Kirgar, private respondent no. 4 herein, made a complaint before the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Mechukha by raising a land dispute between him and one Shri Tashi Phelley. Pursuant to the said complaint, a Kebang was held on 09.01.1987 between the respondent no. 4 and Shri Tashi Phelley. The Kebang decided the land namely, Dangdong Chokeng, Nib Simehi Area, Lame Nego and Doriangeha in favour of the respondent no. 4 and the land, namely Golak was divided between the respondent no. 4 and the said Tashi Phelley. The contention of the petitioners is that the land Daba Kigar was never an issue before the kebang held in the year 1987.
4. In the year 2022, the respondent no. 4 had encroached in the Daba Kigar land of petitioners and started constructing road and bridges under Government scheme of Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. On such encroachment, the petitioners have tried to resolve the matter locally and reported the matter before the village authority. However, the dispute could not be resolved by the village authority. Having no option left, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 02.05.2022 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District, Mechukha for immediate suspension of construction work carried out by the respondent no. 4 at Daba Kigar land. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Additional Deputy Commissioner has directed that till clarification of the matter, the ongoing work should be halted and directed the respondent no. 4 to report on 05.05.2022. The petitioners were also directed to report to the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 12.05.2022 in connection with the dispute over the said Land.
5. The Additional Deputy Commissioner vide no. MKA/JUD-104/KEB-GEN/2021 dated 01.08.2022 passed the impugned order, whereby it is held that Lame Nego belong to the respondent no. 4 and the petitioners have no right to claim over the Lame Nego land, thereby, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has decided the title of the disputed land. Being aggrieved of the order dated 01.08.2022, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present application.
6. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mechukha is without jurisdiction. While referring to the judgment and order of this Court in the case of the Registrar General vs. Union of India and Others, 2013 (4) GLT 1109, he submits that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the administration of justice by regularly constituted Courts manned by the judicial officer of the cadre will function as per the Civil Court Act and to that extent the North East Frontier (Administration of Justice), 1945 conferring judicial powers on the executive will cease to operate. He further submits that on the enactment of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, the Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to determine the title and interest over land
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute over the land in question, as per the Arunachal Prade....
Not affording an opportunity to rebut claims of parties by allowing them to lead evidence either oral or documentary shall negate very foundation requirements of not only provisions but also lead to ....
Only civil courts have jurisdiction to determine ownership and rights over land, while administrative authorities must adhere to the statutory framework, as established in this case.
The Deputy Commissioner does not have the authority to decide the title of an individual over any property, and such matters should be addressed by a civil court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
