IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Commissioner cannot issue eviction orders without specific legal authority under the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. M. Nibo, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing counsel for the Land Management respondent No. 3; Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. G. Riba, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

2. It is noted that the respondent No. 4, though impleaded by name is the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar. As we do not find anything in this writ petition alleging malice against the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 has acted in his official capacity to pass order and to implement the directions by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, we request the learned State counsel to appear for respondent No. 4.

3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made three fold prayers; (1) for quashing the order dated 16.06.2022 passed in the proceeding of the Art of Living Society-vs-Shri Bengia Talo and 2 others and eviction order dated 09.08.2022; (2) cancellation of LPC dated 21.09.2011 and LPC dated 22.09.2011 issued in favor of the Art of Living Society, Jullang, Itanagar (respondent No.5); and (3) the authority who issued the LPC referred above and the Magistrate who put the signature gift deed dated 23.04.2008 may be directed for necessary action as per the procedure provided under the law.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is possessing a land measuring 600 Sq. mtrs since the year, 1990. Pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2021, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has submitted a reply on 01.02.2021. By order dated 08.02.2021, the Addl. District Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Complex in the proceeding of CEO/JUD-2282/2021/6527-31, issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C., directed the parties to maintain status-quo and the land was ordered to be inspected. In connection with the said proceeding, the respondent No.5 society had submitted a letter dated 17.02.2022.

5. Nothing has been stated in this writ petition as to what had happened to the said proceeding. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar issued a summons dated 05.05.2022, whereby petitioner was directed to appear in the proceeding and accordingly, on 09.05.2022, the petitioner appeared before the said authority and while the case was fixed on 19.05.2022, as an interim measure, all parties were directed to maintain status-quo by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Capital Complex, Itanagar. Thereafter, in the proceedings of DC-ICC-17013/13/2022 between the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner and 2 others, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar had held that the petitioner and the other respondents in the said proceeding were occupying their respective plot of land without any authority of law and they have respectively occupied plots under the boundary of 2 LPC’s which was LPC land of respondent No. 5 was without any authority of law and illegal and accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Bengia Talo and another person, namely, Lindum Tabong were directed to vacate the LPC land of the respondent No. 5 society on or before 07.08.2022, failing which eviction shall be carried out and restore to respondent No. 5 without any notice.

6. Thereafter, by an order dated 09.08.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar directed the concerned EAC to carry eviction of the encroachment done by the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 within 2 weeks.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objection to the gift deed executed by respondent Nos. 6 & 7, by which respondent No. 5 was handed over plot of land mentioned hereinabove was illegal and could not devolve any property on the respondent No. 5. Firstly, because the said gift deed did not contain the signature of the donee and therefore, it is not an agreement. Secondly, it is submitted that respondent No. 5 society does not have any a