IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of statutory provisions and prior notice in taking over possession of land, and the significance of upholding rights based on valid certificates.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned Standing Counsel, Housing, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. A. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 03/09/2018 issued by the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, taking over possession and ownership rights of the land measuring 9.12 acres with built up structure in favour of the department of Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioners herein claim to be the owners in possession in respect of a large plot of land measuring about 45 acres based on Land Possession Certificates (LPCs) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district on 11/08/2008. The LPCs are annexed to the writ petition and mentions the area of land along with proper description and boundary of the land claimed by the petitioners.

4. As the land owner, the petitioner no.1 had executed an agreement dated 17/02/2010 with the respondent no. 3 for construction of 3000 affordable houses over the aforesaid plot of land. As per the agreement, the petitioner no. 1 was to receive a sum of Rs.12 lakhs per acre of land as premium for the land which was to be shared by the respondent no. 3 and the Housing department in the ratio of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre by the respondent no. 3 and Rs. 2 lakhs per acre by the respondent no. 1. Based on such agreement, the State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) had entered into a separate agreement dated 03/10/2010 with the respondent no. 3 herein for execution of the project at Lower Jollang (Paga Tarak) on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model.

5. It appears that the construction work had commenced and some of the intending purchasers had also deposited initial amount for purchasing the housing units in the project. However, at that stage, certain dispute arose pertaining to the land, as a result of which, execution of the project got derailed. Situated thus, the respondent no.1 had issued the impugned order dated 03/09/2018, the operative part of which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

“Now, therefore, consequent upon making the full and final payment, the possession and ownership rights of the land measuring 9.12 acres along with built up structures stands transferred to the name of department of housing, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.”

6. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioners’ counsel primarily on 3 (three) grounds. Firstly, that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Secretary, Housing, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, does not have the power and authority to unilaterally cancel the LPC and/or transfer the ownership right and possession of the land in favour of the Housing Department by issuing the impugned order. Secondly, the impugned order has been issued in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and thirdly, there is no privity of contract between the Housing Department and the writ petitioners and therefore, merely based on the agreement entered into by the SUDA with the respondent no.3, no action of taking over possession of the land, could have been initiated by the Department.

7. Mr. P. Taffo, learned Standing Counsel, Housing Department, Arunachal Pradesh has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by contending that the plot of land was always under the possession of the Housing Department and, therefore, the impugned order did not change the title and possession over the land. In fact, submits Mr. Taffo, since the department was all along possessing the land, the impugned order dated 03/09/2018, according to him, was a redundant exercise and ought to have been avoided by the department. The learned departmental counsel has, however, failed to address argument on the plea that the respondent no.1 did not h