The court emphasized the need to address disputed issues of land ownership, eviction notice, and jurisdiction in the pending Money Suit, rather than dismissing it on the ground of maintainability.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State/petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 18.02.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lower Subansiri District, Ziro in Misc. Case No. 50/2018, arising out of Money Suit No. 02/2016.

3. The contention of the State/petitioners is that in the year 1952, the land called “Ziro Putu” was donated by the local people of Ziro for the purpose of establishing the government establishment and since then, the same has been under the possession and use of the government. In regards to ownership of the said land, the dispute arose in the year 2000 which led to a litigation between Old Ziro Bazar Committee and Taso Kago and Lalyang clan. Finally, vide order dated 18.10.2002, the said land has been declared to be a government land and the claims of the Old Ziro Bazar Committee and Tazo Kago and Lalyang clan were rejected. But, in the year 2013, the plaintiff/respondent Smti Kago Yassung encroached over the said government land by way of erecting Ordinary Bamboo Type structures within the premises of switchyard area (Ziro Putu). Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice dated 29.08.2013 was issued to her as to why her structures shall not be demolished. But, in spite of receiving the Show Cause Notice, she did not submit her reply and therefore, another Notice dated 16.01.2014 was issued directing her to appear before the Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer, Ziro on 31.01.2014. But, on failure to satisfy on the part of the respondent over her encroachment, a Final Order dated 24.01.2014 was issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer directing Smti Kago Yassung/respondent, along with other similarly situated persons, to remove their structures within 31.12.2014. But, in spite of the said order, she did not remove her structure and hence, the eviction was carried out by the Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer on 13.07.2015. But the plaintiff/respondent neither preferred any appeal against the order dated 24.11.2014 and thus, the eviction order attained finality. However, after eviction, the plaintiff/respondent filed a Money Suit, being Money Suit No. 02/2016, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lower Subansiri District, Ziro claiming compensation for illegal eviction against her properties.

4. The State defendants appeared accordingly and filed their Written Statement, wherein the State defendants denied the compensation claimed by the plaintiff and raised the issue of maintainability of the suit as the same is barred under Sections 19 & 20 of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2003”). But the maintainability issue was not heard by the learned Civil Judge and accordingly, the State defendants had to file a Misc. Case No. 50/2018 in the said Money Suit No. 02/2016, wherein the present petitioners/defendants sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability. Accordingly, the said Misc. Case No. 50/2018 was heard by the learned Civil Judge and after hearing both the parties, the same was rejected vide impugned dated 18.02.2019, wherein the learned Court below failed to consider the ground of maintainability raised by the State defendants and rejected the same by travelling beyond the pleadings.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. S. Tapin, appearing for the State/petitioners, that the State of Arunachal Pradesh enacted a law being the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003 to deal with the eviction of unauthorised occupants over the government land. The issue of encroachment and eviction thereon has to be decided by the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Act of 2003 and the Deputy Commissioner is