Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 6032
Kardak Ete, J
Shri Kago Nime – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WP(C)/79/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Khoda Tari
For the Respondents: Ms. G. Ete, GA (AP), Rajesh Sonar, Binny Nyaruce, R Taku, Dugmar Kamduk, SC (Land Management), Duyu Laji, Tapi Omo, K Kozing, Rei Tapa, Elina Perme
The provisional land allotment does not violate prior court orders as it pertains to a different land area.
Headnote:(A) Land Allotment - Provisional allotment order challenged on grounds of violation of interim order related to Land Possession Certificate - Cancellation of LPC led to eviction concerns - Court ruled provisional allotment valid as it pertained to different land area. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) Natural Justice - Principle highlighted regarding prior LPC cancellation without due process - Respondents must consider LPC validity afresh post-eviction orders. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the provisional land allotment order for land claimed to have been ancestral, emphasizing prior judgment to uphold a Land Possession Certificate that was cancelled earlier.
Findings of Court:
Court confirmed the provisional allotment was for land distinct from the petitioner’s claim, thus maintaining the order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisional allotment violated existing orders or encroached upon the petitioner’s land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the land provision allotted to the respondent was not the same as claimed by the petitioner, and the interim order from a previous writ petition had merged with the final order.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allotment order pertains to a different plot from the petitioner's claim. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner challenges land allotment based on ancestral claims. (Para 3 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. court confirms all orders and dismisses the writ petition. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms.
G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. Sonar learned counsel for the respondent No.4. None appears for the respondent No.3.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the provisional land allotment order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, whereby a plot of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs is provisionally allotted to the Apatani Pensioner Welfare Association, the respondent No.4 herein, for construction of their office building at Ziro Putu area, Old Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The petitioner claims that he has a plot of land measuring 1720.70 sq.mtrs. at Kundo area (Kudung Barang), Ziro in the District of Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, which has been inherited from his forefathers. A Land Possession Certificate dated 20.08.2009 was issued in his favour. However, the same was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate, the petitioner has filed the writ petition, being WP(C)456(AP)2015.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that vide order dated 08.10.2015, this Court has passed an interim order, whereby it has been provided that cancellation of the LPC should not be the basis for eviction of certificate holder. It is contended that despite the pendency of the above writ petition and the interim order, a portion of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs. has been provisionally allotted to the private respondent No.4 for establishment of their office by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, vide provisional Land Allotment No.LMZ/PWA/2022/809-812 DATED 14.02.2022, without any notice to the petitioner.
5. Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when this Court has passed an interim order to the effect that the cancellation of the LPC should not be the basis for eviction of the certificate holder, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro ought not have issued the provisional allotment order in favour of the respondent No.4 for construction of office building, inasmuch as if the provisional allotment order is allowed to stand, the petitioner will be evicted from the land. Therefore, the impugned provisional allotment order dated 14.02.2022 may be set aside and quashed.
6. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 have submitted that the land claimed by the petitioner is at Kundo area, Ziro, whereas the provisional land allotment order issued to the respondent No.4 is at Old Ziro Putu, which does not fall within the Kundo area. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against such allotment.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.
8. The case projected by the petitioner is that he has a private land at Kundo area, Ziro, which he inherited from his forefathers, for which a Land Possession Certificate was issued in his favour. However, same was cancelled, which has been put to challenge in WP(C)456(AP)2015. The allotment of a plot of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs. in favour of the respondent No.4 for construction of their office building on a portion of the land of the petitioner, which would result in his eviction, and would be in violation of the order of this Court dated 08.10.2015, passed in the aforementioned writ petition.
9. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the pa
