Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040010862023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/375/2023 Dr. Bobby Taipodia Daughter of Late Kardu Taipodia, Resident of Lipu Village, PO/PS Likabali, District Lower Siang, PIN 791125, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Land Management, Itanagar, PIN 791111, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:the Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : District Lower Siang Likabali PIN 787110 Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Duri Taipodia Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Kardu Taipodia Resident of Lipu Village PO/PS Likabali District Lower Siang PIN 791125 Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Dukom Taipodia Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Kardu Taipodia Page No.# 2/6 Resident of Lipu Village PO/PS Likabali District Lower Siang PIN 791125 Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Durik Taipodia Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Kardu Taipodia Resident of Lipu Village PO/PS Likabali District Lower Siang PIN 791125 Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T Sunil, Taying Nega,N B P Singha Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), M Basar,N Singye,R Taku,Rajesh Sonar,Elina Perme BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. T. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Wangmo, learned State Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 17.07.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, whereby the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of the complaint made by her brothers, respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 herein. Page No.# 3/6 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her parents were in occupation and possession of land measuring 20,700 Sq. meters at village Lipu, Likabali in the District of Lower Siang, since 1971, which was used for cultivation. In the year 2009, the mother of the petitioner applied for issuance of Land Possession Certificate in respect of the aforesaid land. However, the same could not be issued. Subsequently, after considerable period of time, the parents of the petitioner has given the aforesaid land to her, whereafter the petitioner started cultivating the same. In the year 2014, the petitioner applied for grant of Land Possession Certificate in respect of the aforesaid land. On such application with the required documents, including an undertaking by way of an affidavit, a public notice was issued on 28.12.2022. Thereafter, since there was no objection from any person and on completion of required formalities, the petitioner was issued a Land Possession Certificate dated 01.05.2023. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, vide impugned order dated 17.07.2023, has cancelled the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by her three brothers, respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 herein. 4. It is the contention of Mr. T. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the land in respect of which the Land Possession Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner had been gifted to her by her parents in the year 2013 and has since remained under her continuous occupation and cultivation. It is submitted that the Land Possession Certificate was issued in the year 2023 after following due process for issuance of such Land Possession Certificate. However, the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity of hearing, which violates the principle of natural justice as the Deputy Commissioner could not have cancelled Page No.# 4/6 the validly issued Land Possession Certificate merely on the basis of a complaint made by the private respondents, who may be the brothers of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K. Sonar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5, submits that since the petitioner and the private respondents are the siblings, the landed property of their parents had been proportionately partitioned amongst them, wherein the petitioner has been given huge chunk of land approximately 10,500 Sq. meters, which is under her possession with a valid Land Possession Certificate. The land in respect of which the petitioner has obtained the Land Possession Certificate by an order dated 01.05.2023 actually forms part of the share of the respondent No. 5. Despite repeated requests, when the petitioner failed to settle the matter, the private respondents submitted a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner placing all the facts. Accordingly, the Land Possession Certificate dated 01.05.2023, issued in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled in accordance with law. 6. Ms. K. Wangmo, learned State Counsel, submits that in view of the disputed question of facts, the matter may be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner for proper consideration and determination, particularly as both the petitioner and the private respondents have raised their respective claims and counter-claims as regards the original ownership of the land in question. 7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the Land Possession Certificate in respect of the land measuring 20,700 Sq. meters was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, vide dated 01.05.2023. It is also an Page No.# 5/6 admitted position that the private respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are the own brothers of the petitioner who are equally entitled for the land in respect of their parents with the petitioner. According to the private respondents, the landed property of their parents had already been portioned proportionately amongst the siblings, including the petitioner, and the petitioner had been given a share of land measuring approximately 10,500 Sq. meters, which is already under her possession with a valid Land Possession Certificate without any encumbrances. It has also been brought on record that a Land Possession Certificate in respect of the land in question appears to have been issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 in the year 2012, which, prima facie, shows an overlapping claim in respect of the land for which Land Possession Certificates appears to have been issued at different points of time. 10. It is also not in dispute that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner before cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate dated 01.05.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner, which, in my view, violates the principles of natural justice, as a minimum prior notice or opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order appears to have been passed only on the basis of the complaint made by the brothers of the petitioner, who are respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 herein. 11. Considering that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was admittedly issued or afforded to the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, cancelling the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. However, Page No.# 6/6 in view of the rival claims raised by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 with regard to the ownership and entitlement over the land in question, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, to consider and decide the respective claims of the parties in accordance with law and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, including issuance of consequential Land Possession Certificate, if found necessary, in favour of the person who would be found entitle of actual ownership of the land in question. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, on 21.09.2026. 12. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant