Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040010522022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/307/2022 Donik Tayu S/o Late Donik Hipik, a Resident of Niti Vihar, Itanagar, PO/PS Itanagar, Itanagar Capital Region, Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 9436422112 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors. Represented by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Complex Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:Tadung Padung Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Tangong Padung a Permanent Resident of Kebang Village Post Office Panging Boleng District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Niti Vihar Post Office Police Station Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:Sonam Yangfo Age: 0 Page No.# 2/8 Occupation : S/o Lt. Eppo Yangfo Resident of Niti Vihar PO/PS Itanagar Itanagar Capital Region Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 943621904 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Gamken Bam,Taba Tokur,Kirnya Lollen,Terji Kamchi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Juel Saroh,Toni Dameng,Bomnya Kamdak,Romjir Rakshap,Nalo Pada BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29-10-2025 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. Aggrieved by the summon dated 17.08.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar, whereby, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been summoned to appear for hearing of the case with all the relevant documents/material facts related with the case, this writ petition has been instituted, essentially on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, while issuing the summon has “called back” the order dated 17.03.2022 passed in favour of the petitioner, in violation of the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2000). 3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the petitioner is in Page No.# 3/8 occupation of a land measuring 140 Square metres located at Gadha Colony, Niti Vihar, Itanagar, since 1987, which was initially in occupation of his father. The petitioner having been in possession, applied for allotment of the said plot of land before the concerned authorities. 4. A dispute arose involving few persons with regard to the land located in the vicinity of the land occupied by the petitioner, including the land of the petitioner. Vide order dated 29.09.2020, the Extra Assistant Commissioner-cum- Executive Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Region, after physical verification of the entire disputed area, held that the petitioner along with one Shri Toku Pallang are in possession of their respective land since many years. Accordingly, they were allowed to continue to possess/hold the said plots of land and held that the same shall not be evicted without authority of law. 5. In the meantime, when the application for allotment of land submitted by the petitioner was pending, the authority illegally allotted the said plot of land in favour of one Smti Yapang Mize, which was thereafter, transferred in favour of respondent No. 3, namely, Shri Tadung Padung, in the year 2011, against which the petitioner filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner seeking cancellation of the land allotment. Vide order dated 17.03.2022, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner held that the land allotment order dated 11.03.2001 stands cancelled and directed the DLRSO, Itanagar Capital Complex to initiate necessary steps to cancel the allotment officially as per the relevant Guidelines/Rules etc. 6. While the process for cancellation as per the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was underway, a complaint was lodged by one Shri Sonam Yangfo, respondent No. 4, praying for revocation and cancellation of the order dated 17.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner passed Page No.# 4/8 the impugned summon dated 17.08.2022, directing the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to appear for hearing of the case with all the relevant documents/materials related with the case. 7. Essentially, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which recalls the order dated 17.03.2022, which was passed in favour of the petitioner, pending final determination. 8. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the provisions of Section 86 of the Act, 2000, strenuously argued that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to review its own order, as any order or review has to be made after obtaining the permission of the Government. He submits that no order affecting any question of right between the private parties can be reviewed except on the application of the party to the proceedings or after notice to the other party and no application for review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within 90 (ninety) days from the date of the order. In the instant case, he submits that the use of the word “called back” of the order dated 17.03.2022, amounts to a review of its own order by the Deputy Commissioner, which is not permissible under the law. That apart, since no application has been filed within 90 (ninety) days from the date of the order dated 17.03.2022, the complaint/application ought not to have been entertained as the same has been filed much after expiry of 90 (ninety) days and therefore, is barred under the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 86 of the Act, 2000. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 17.08.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate and Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the respondents, e-converso, have submitted that since, the Page No.# 5/8 impugned summon is only for appearance with all the relevant documents/materials for hearing of the case, pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent No. 4, who appears to be actually a land allottee, there is no illegality in issuing of summon for proceedings of the case. It is submitted that mere use of the word “called back” would not amount to review of the order as the impugned order itself is a summon for hearing of the matter and the final determination of the case is yet to be made. Therefore, no illegality has been committed in issuing summons to the parties for settlement or final determination of the matter. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the provisions of the Act, 2000. 11. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is to the order of recalling back of the order dated 17.03.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in favour of the petitioner to the effect that recalling of the order amounts to review, which is not permissible under Section 86 of the Act, 2000. 12. For better appreciation, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 86 of the Act, 2000, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “…86. (1) A revenue officer may, either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. Provided that a revenue officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner shall, before reviewing an order under this section, obtain the permission of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall, before reviewing any order passed by any of his pre-decessors-in-office obtain the permission of the Government. (2) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings or except after notice to the other party and no application for the review of such order shall be Page No.# 6/8 entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the date of the order. (3) No order shall be reviewed except on the following grounds, namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. (4) For the purpose of this section, the Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be the successor- in-office of any revenue officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a revenue officer and to whom there is no successor in the district. (5) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority.” 13. Perusal of the above provision, shows that a Revenue Officer may, either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed, provided that if the review order is sought to be passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner, a permission shall be obtained from the Deputy Commissioner and in case of the Deputy Commissioner, from the Government. It also provides that no order affecting any question of right between private parties shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings or except after notice to the other party and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the date of the order. 14. Admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner, vide an order dated 17.03.2022 has cancelled the allotment order made in favour of the respondent No. 3, on the complaint of the petitioner, and directed the DLRSO, Itanagar Capital Complex to process the matter for cancellation by the Government in terms of the Guidelines/Rules. It is also admitted position that the complainant, Shri Sonam Yangfo, the respondent No. 4 herein, was not a party to the proceeding being Case No. DC-ICC-12016/7/2021, between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. Initially, it appears that the respondent No. 4 was a party; however, on the Page No.# 7/8 prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated to be not connected, the name of the respondent No. 4 was dropped. 15. As noted above, it transpires that an application for review of the order cannot be entertained unless it is made within 90 (ninety) days from the date of the order, and no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings. In the instant case, since the complainant, namely, Shri Sonam Yangfo, the respondent No. 4 herein was not a party to the proceedings of the order dated 17.03.2022, it would not be appropriate to expect the party who was not party to the proceedings to file an application for review, within the stipulated period. However, such ground would be a matter to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, while taking up the complaint/application, as to whether there was a reasonable ground to prevent the complainant from filing the application within the limitation period under the law. 16. The impugned order dated 17.08.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, summoning the parties for hearing, as reflected in the summon to the effect that the parties to appear with all the relevant documents/materials for hearing of the matter, in my considered view, would not be held to be illegal, as the issue involved requires to be finally determined. Thus, the impugned summon per se cannot be held to be illegal. However, the order of recalling of the order dated 17.03.2022 ought not to have been passed pending final determination. 17. The use of the word “called back”, would not have any bearing on the final determination by the Deputy Commissioner and shall not be considered a review order while finally determining the dispute between the parties. Page No.# 8/8 18. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the matter be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar for final determination, in terms of the summon dated 17.08.2022. 19. The parties are at liberty to place all the relevant documents/materials before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall hear and decide the matter by providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 20. Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant