IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that land allotments within a wildlife sanctuary require proper authority and compliance with legal procedures, rendering unauthorized allotments void.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Department appearing for respondent No. 1 to 4 and Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioner society by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not issuing formal order of land allotment to the petitioner society and also the subsequent action of cancellation of the approval so granted by the competent authority for effecting such allotment in favour of the petitioner society. The petitioners have also challenged the land allotment orders issued in respect of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 herein which is contended to have been so made from the plot of land which was initially approved to be so allotted to the petitioner society.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner society was initially established with the name “Officers Club”. Thereafter, it was registered on 03.06.1985 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the same and style of “Officers Club”. It is contended that the members of the society having resolved to change the name of the “Officers Club” as “Itanagar Club”, a request came to be made before the Registrar of the Societies, Arunachal Pradesh for change of the name of the society, by maintaining its initial registration. The same was accepted and the name of the petitioner society was permitted to be so changed as “Itanagar Club”. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted applications praying for allotment of land measuring 4000 Sq.Mtrs, located at D-Sector, Itanagar in its favour. The said application was considered by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, recommendation for allotment of the said plot of land came to be so made in favour of the petitioner society and the proposal was forwarded to the competent authority. The matter on being processed, the then District Land Advisory Board proceeded to grant its approval and thereafter, it is contended that the Government had also granted its approval for allotment of the said plot of land in favour of the petitioner society. Vide communication dated 28.06.2012, the Director of Land Management Department proceeded to convey the approval of the Government for allotment of plots of land as mentioned in Annexures-A & B of the said communication to the allottees, which included the petitioner society and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner was required to issue the formal land allotment order, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the sand communication. The name of the petitioner society figures at serial No. 3 of Annexure-B to the said communication dated 18.06.2012 and the allotment of land so approved to be made to the petitioner society was indicated therein to be of 4000 Sq.Mtrs. at D-Sector, Itanagar.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner society that in spite of the said development and the approval being granted, no formal land allotment order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner society and the petitioner society proceeded to submit representations before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner praying for issuance of formal land allotment order in its favour in respect of the land so approved by the competent authorities.

5. The representation submitted by the petitioners in the matter not having evoked any response, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)No.599(AP)2017 and this Court vide order, dated 02.08.2017, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition requiring the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner society by way of a speaking and reasoned order.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner society that the said representation, however, was not disposed of and on coming to learn that the respondent authorities wer