Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR PERMANENT BENCH
Kardak Ete, J.
Shri Kaling Saro, S/o Late Tanon Saro -Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary and ors.- Respondents
WP(C)53(AP)2018
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Danggen, O. Perme, O. Duggong, T. Tatak, D. Taggu, Y. Karga
For the Respondent: P. Pangu (G.A) T. Tagum(SC)
IMPORTANT POINT
The state cannot dispossess a citizen of property without due process, as established under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Property - Ownership - Article 300A - The court emphasized the necessity of due process for deprivation of property rights, interpreting Article 300A to affirm that no individual can be dispossessed without legal authority and procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing his complaint about illegal construction on his land by the Health Department, asserting ownership and seeking compensation or return of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was temporarily allowed for use by the Health Department, and the petitioner could not be deprived of his property without due process, as no legal donation or acquisition had occurred.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was deprived of his property without due process and if the state could claim adverse possession over the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state cannot claim adverse possession over land owned by a citizen and must follow due process for any deprivation of property rights.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the state to acquire the land and pay compensation or return it to the petitioner.
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 petitioner.
4. It is contended that on 13.01.2000, the father of the petitioner had approached the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by way of complaint that since the land was allowed for temporary construction of the Primary Health Sub Centre, no further construction or repair shall be made as he has already developed the area into a horticulture garden since the year 1986-87. Thereafter, the petitioner has also approached the respondent Department, on various occasions, praying consideration for appointment of his wife in the Department in lieu of compensation or to acquire the land and to pay compensation to the petitioner.
5. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no dispute that the land in question belongs to the petitioner. Although the Department was temporarily allowed to use the land for establishment of Primary Health Sub Centre, the land has never been donated nor any acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the respondent authorities. She submits that since the ownership is not in dispute and there is no acquisition of the said land, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. She further submits that the respondent authorities being the welfare State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of a citizen. Therefore, she submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to acquire the land by paying the appropriate compensation or return the same to the petitioner. She has further submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay lump sum compensation to the petitioner for past illegal occupation of the land by the Department.
6. In support of her submissions, Ms. Danggen, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569.
7. Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Department of Health Services, on the other hand, by referring to the Kebang decisions dated 19.03.1996, 03.06.1997 and 07.03.2004, submits that the father of the petitioner has donated the land in question for establishment of Primary Health Sub Centre. On such donation, the Department has established the Primary Health Sub Centre. He submits that in the Kebang decision dated 19.03.1996, it had decided that the land of the school area belongs to Shri Tanong Saro, the father of the petitioner; and the area where the school, RWD Department/Unit hospital are established, the father of the petitioner cannot claim the said as his personal area. However, in the event, if the land in question is vacated, the same shall be returned to the father of the petitioner and the same has been reiterated in the kebang decision of 1997. On 07.03.2004, a
