IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that land donated for public purposes cannot be claimed by descendants of the donors unless specific rights were retained at the time of donation, and that mere assertions of ownership without evidence are insufficient to support a legal claim.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Ms. K. Wangmo, learned State counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Meena, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioners, five in numbers, claims to be the members of the Geku Town Land Owner Committee, have filed this writ petition challenging the notification dated 06.02.2007 issued by the Secretary Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by which, an area of 152.63 acres has sought to be acquired for the establishment of Geku Township, under Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners have also challenged the land allotment given to the private individuals by the respondent authority in Geku Township, on the ground that the petitioners are the owner of the land within the Geku Township. The further grievance of the petitioner is for proper demarcation of the Geku Township area as well as for acquisition of the land of the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the respondent authority vide preliminary notification dated 06.02.2007 has issued for acquisition of an area of 152.63 acres for upgradation of Geku Township. Thereafter, the land acquisition proceedings got lapsed, as the said proceeding has not proceeded further by bringing the same to its logical conclusion.

4. It is contended that the respondent authority has randomly started proposals for allotment of the land within the Geku Township to the private individuals including private respondent No. 6, which includes the land of the petitioners without there being any acquisition as well as proper demarcation of the area.

5. The petitioners having come to know such action of proposal for allotment to the private individuals without there being any proper acquisition as well as the demarcation of the land, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23.09.2016. On receipt of the documents from the respondent authorities, they filed series of representations to the concerned authorities from time to time. However, according to the petitioner as on date, the representation of the petitioners have not been considered and dispose of. Hence this writ petition.

6. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are executive members of the Geku Town Land Owners Committee (private unregistered association) who are the land owners at Geku under Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Their ownerships, titles and possessions are recognised traditionally as per the customs and usages of Adis.

7. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel, submits that the petitioners are aggrieved with the arbitrary exercise of official power by allotting land to the private individuals including private respondent No. 6, of the land of the petitioners without any proper demarcation and acquisition of the land for establishment of administrative headquarter at Geku by the respondent authority. Being aggrieved with such arbitrary action of the state respondents, they have filed series of representations/ complaints for necessary action.

8. He submits that, sensing the various public complaints against the arbitrary expansion of Govt. land over the traditionally hold private land, the respondent authorities issued a preliminary Notification dated 06.02.2007 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for formal acquisition of the said land measuring 152.63 acres for the establishment of Geku Township. However, the said land acquisition process could not be completed and the land acquisition process has already lapsed. In the due course of time, the state respondents have illegally issued land allotment orders to some private individuals including private respondent No. 6, within the private land of the petitioners even before formal acquisition and dem