Back
KARDAK ETE
Kaling Saro, S/o Late Tanon Saro – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State respondents No.1, 5 and 7 as well as Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Department of Health Services, for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 04.08.2017, passed by the Circle Officer, Jomlo Mobuk, Siang District, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging illegal construction of permanent structure over the land of the petitioner by one Shri Tapir Tamut is held to be unfounded. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to acquire the land by following the due process of law and pay compensation or to vacate the land.
3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land measuring 500 Sq.Mtr. situated at Patum (Domong) at Jomlo Mongku village, which is under the occupation of the Department of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, where Primary Health Sub Centre is established. It is contended that the land in question, was given to the Department for establishment of temporary Primary Health Sub Centre by the father of the petition
The state cannot dispossess a citizen of property without due process, as established under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Traditional land ownership rights in Arunachal Pradesh must be acknowledged, and mere possession is insufficient to establish ownership without considering customary practices.
If right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of Constitution protects such right.
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....
Point of Law : High Court shall not go into any question arising out of the disputed facts - Respondents cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate.
Point of Law : High Court shall not go into any question arising out of the disputed facts - Respondents cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate.
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
