Back
KARDAK ETE
Tanam Nacho S/O Lt. Tapo Nacho – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. Represented By The Commissioner, Land Management Deptt. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. T. Bayor, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy. S.G.I. for the respondent Nos.4 & 5.
2. The challenge made in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 12.12.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, whereby, the claim of ownership of the petitioners over the land measuring about 8644.75 Sq. Mtrs., situated at Nacho and 14304.00 Sq. Mtrs., situated at Limeking, has been rejected as the petitioners have failed to adduce sufficient evidence/documents to prove their case of ownership which are presently under the possession of the ITBP, the respondent No.5. It is further held that the lands in question are of strategic importance and are connected to the National security.
3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land measuring about 3 (three) Acres, situated at Nacho and 4 (four) Acres situated at Limeking, in the Upper Subansiri District, which they have inherited from their forefathers from time immemorial. It is contended that without the
Traditional land ownership rights in Arunachal Pradesh must be acknowledged, and mere possession is insufficient to establish ownership without considering customary practices.
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 ow....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The obligation of the State to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the deprivation of property, as per the Constitution and relevant statutes.
Government land allotment confers rights to the allottee, validating the maintainability of an injunction suit despite disputes over title.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
A valid land allotment must be canceled before a subsequent allotment can be deemed lawful, reaffirming the plaintiffs' ownership rights and possession under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms....
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
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
