Eviction orders must strictly follow due process, including providing notice and opportunity for hearing as mandated by law.

ORDER

25.06.2025 Heard Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R.

Basar, learned State counsel for the State respondents.

2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.06.2025, signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo to which the ADC-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo has issued a memo whereby the ADC-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo in exercise of power under Section 5 (ii) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Act of 2003’) has directed the Circle Officer/ Town Magistrate to carry out eviction of illegally constructed structure by the petitioner and remove the structure on 21.06.2025 and to submit a report.

3. Having considered the nature of the issue involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, at the motion stage.

4. The petitioner claims to have one shop, namely, M/s Markia C.B.W. Enterprise at Gandhi, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, which is being established since many months, projects that the impugned order passed by the ADC-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, directing eviction of the petitioner is illegal and not in accordance with the due process of law as he has not been provided with opportunity of hearing.

5. Mr. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to the provision of Section 4 of the Act of 2003 submits that the ADC-cum-Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo has issued the impugned eviction order without following the provision of Section 4 of the said Act of 2003, which, otherwise requires that if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation on any public premises and that he should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should be made. Therefore, the action of passing the impugned order of eviction without following the provision of law is liable to be interfered with.

6. Ms. R. Basar, learned State counsel submits that admittedly, the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and he has encroached the Right of Way (for short, ‘RoW’) of Govt. land, premises of Agriculture Store, godown of BDO office etc. at Daporijo without any valid permission from the authority. She further submits that petitioner has illegally constructed structures and there is nothing on record nor in the pleading that the petitioner has the right over the said Govt. land, therefore, the issuance of show-cause notice would be a mere formality.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed on record.

8. Much less the documents, the petitioner has not even pleaded as to how he is entitled to occupy the said Govt. land and running a shop over the land. There is no any materials to show that he is authorized to construct structures or to occupy the Govt. land. However, perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Estate Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo issued the eviction order in exercise of power under Section 5 (ii) of the said Act of 2003 which is to be preceded by notice under Section 4 of the said Act of 2003. Strangely, it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner has signed the impugned order, although he is the appellate authority under the Act of 2003.

9. Section 4 and 5 of the Act’ 2003, are reproduced herein under:- “4 (i) If the Estate Officer is of opinion that any person is unauthorized occupation on any public premises and that he should be evicted, the Estate Office shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all person