IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Shri Basongsingh Pao, S/o-Lt. Lahorsingh Pao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WP(C)/467(AP)/2022
Decided on : 01-10-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for Certiorari or Mandamus - Petitioners challenged notifications regarding land acquisition and eviction notices, claiming no donation of land occurred - Court found that land was voluntarily donated by villagers for public purposes, and petitioners lacked ownership rights - Notifications upheld as valid. (Paras 4, 22, 23)
(B) Land Acquisition - Proper legal process must be followed for land acquisition - Court emphasized that the petitioners, having no standing, could not challenge the notifications. (Paras 6, 23)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed eviction from land they alleged was privately owned, while respondents asserted it was government land due to a deed of donation executed by villagers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land was indeed donated for public purposes and that the petitioners had no legal claim to ownership.
Issues: The main issues were whether the land was privately owned or donated and the validity of the eviction notices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, as witnesses to the deed of donation, had no standing to claim ownership, and the notifications were valid.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5.
2. This application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: In 2016, officials from the Land Management Branch of the district administration conducted a detailed survey of the Sille township area, preparing maps of the lands under the possession of various government departments. These maps were submitted to the Circle Officer, Sille-Oyan. Subsequently, the Circle Officer forwarded the information to the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, East Siang District, for further necessary actions.
3.1 The survey records reveal that the Government Higher Secondary School was in possession of 29,210.5 sq. m., the Primary Health Centre occupied 7,512 sq. m., the lands where government quarters of the General Administration Department were constructed measured 6,314.3 sq. m., and the land occupied by the Power Department was 1,360 sq. m. Additionally, various other departments occupied 1,150 sq. m.
3.2 To formalize land usage by these government departments, landowners of the Sille-Oyan township and members of the Oyan village authorities executed a Deed of Donation on 03.06.2016, voluntarily donating an area of 45,546.8 sq. m. in favor of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Circle Officer, Sille-Oyan. Upon receiving government approval, the Secretary (Land Management) issued a notification on 12.12 2016, declaring the donated land as government land for public purposes.
3.3 On 20.07.2018, the Deputy Commissioner of East Siang District forwarded a draft notification under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Regulation, 1947, for the acquisition of land in the Sille-Oyan township area, including the petitioner’s land, which had been declared a private plot in the December 2016 notification. Following this, the Director (Land Management) wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on 26.09.2018, requesting clarification as whether the land in question was voluntarily donated or it is involved compensation for land acquisition. The letter clearly indicated that the land had never been donated by the petitioner or other landowners of the Sille-Oyan township.
3.4 No fresh proposal was sent to the government for acquiring land within the Sille-Oyan township area following the return of the proposal. Subsequently, the Secretary (Land Management), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a notification on 19.09.2019 (Memo No. LM-343/2016/903), illegally notifying 73.26 acres of land for the establishment of the Sille-Oyan Circle Headquarter/Township, claiming that the landowners of Sille-Oyan had donated it voluntarily. However, no records of such a donation were found with the District Administration.
3.5 Based on this notification, the Estate Officer-cum-Circle Officer of Sille-Oyan issued eviction notices to the petitioner on November 9, 10, 11, and 13 of 2020. However, in compliance with an interim order dated 11.11.2020, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 297 (AP)/2020, these eviction notices were recalled on 16.11.2020.
3.6 Aggrieved by the notification dated 19.09.2019, the landowners, including petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, filed WP(C) No. 297 (AP)/2020, and the Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the notification until further orders.
Subsequently, the District Administration, Pasighat requested the petitioner’s family to allow some portion of their land for the establishment of a police station. In response, the petitioner's family permitted the construction of the police station building on a portion of land adjacent to NH-52 with
AI
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition notifications, confirming that the land was voluntarily donated by villagers, and the petitioners lacked ownership rights.
The court established that a deed of donation executed by landowners is valid, and individuals not holding ownership cannot challenge government notifications regarding land use.
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....
Traditional land ownership rights in Arunachal Pradesh must be acknowledged, and mere possession is insufficient to establish ownership without considering customary practices.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
Point of law: Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition cannot go into technical aspects with regard to the alignment of the canal, more particularly, in the abs....
The court ruled that land allotments within a wildlife sanctuary require proper authority and compliance with legal procedures, rendering unauthorized allotments void.
The court emphasized the need to address disputed issues of land ownership, eviction notice, and jurisdiction in the pending Money Suit, rather than dismissing it on the ground of maintainability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.