The court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner violated natural justice by restoring the LPC without proper hearings, emphasizing the binding nature of prior findings affirming ownership.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The approach to this writ court under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following prayer:

i) A writ of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction; setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar.

ii) A writ of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction; setting aside and quashed the impugned vide LPC No.DC/CC/LPC-18/08 (pt) dated 05.10.2015 of the respondent No.3 for the land measuring 216 sq.mtrs situated at Model village, Naharlagun.

iii) A direction to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to hear the matter afresh on the basis of subsequent development of gift deed dated 09.10.2015 executed between respondent No.3.

iv) A direction to the respondent No.2 to restore/revive the LPC No.DC/CC/LPC- 18/08 dated 21.07.2008 of the petitioner the land measuring for sq.mtrs situated Naharlagun. at 216 Model village, Naharlagun. -And-

v) And/or pass such order/orders or directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring 216 square meters, in respect of which the necessary Land Possession Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “LPC”) was issued in her favour. Sometime in the year 2014, the petitioner was facing financial difficulties, and in that situation, respondent no. 3 offered to liquidate all the liabilities of the petitioner, in lieu of which the land was to be gifted to him. Accordingly, an agreement was signed. However, respondent no. 3 did not discharge the liabilities, for which the petitioner lodged a complaint seeking revocation of the gift deed. The Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, accordingly directed the EAC, Naharlagun, to take necessary steps, pursuant to which the EAC, Naharlagun directed that a Keba be conducted to look into the matter. It has been contended that on three occasions the Keba was convened. On the first occasion, respondent no. 3 was absent and on the second occasion both the parties were present, however, the witnesses did not appear. It is the case of the petitioner that on the second occasion, respondent no. 3 conceded that he could not discharge his obligation. Be that as it may, the Keba was convened on the third occasion when respondent no. 3 was absent. However, based on the concession made by respondent no. 3 on the second occasion, the Keba took a decision that the land would have to be reverted back to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the LPC which respondent no. 3 had in the meantime obtained. The aforesaid decision of cancellation of the LPC was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition instituted by respondent no. 3, being WP(C) No. 132 of 2018. The primary ground of challenge was violation of the principles of natural justice as respondent no. 3 was not given a proper opportunity to present his case.

3. This Court, vide order dated 08.04.2022, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. However, this Court made an observation that the decision of the Keba was not interfered with and rather, the same was affirmed. On the basis of such remarks, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 30.06.2022, whereby the LPC in the name of respondent no. 3 was restored. It was observed in the impugned order that the present petitioner could not produce any documents. Liberty was, however, granted to the parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the present challenge.

4. I have heard Shri D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, along with Mr. Y. Riram, learned State counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for resp