Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040002072022 2025:GAU-AP:792 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/456/2015 Shri Kago Nime, age about 50 years, Son of Kago Jarbo, Permanent Resident of Hija village, P.O/P.S. Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. MOBILE NO. 8014518065 ..…Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, Ziro. 3. Shri Kanki Darang, presently holding the post of the Deputy Page No.# 2/15 Commissioner, Lower SubansiriDistrict, Arunachal Pradesh, Ziro. 4. The Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee, represented by its Secretary Shri KalungLentho, S/o Late KalungKojing, Resident of Old Ziro, P.O/P.S- Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. ...... Respondents Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Tari Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. G. Ete, G/A Mr. K. Tama Date of Hearing& Judgment : 26.06.2025 :::BEFORE::: 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 and2and Mr. K Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.None appears for the respondent No.3. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.09.2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, whereby the Land Possession Certificate dated 20.08.2009, issuedin favour of the petitioner has been cancelled, on the ground that the said order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Page No.# 3/15 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is having a private land,measuring about 1720.70Sq.mtrs. at Kundo area (Kudung Barang), Ziro in the District of Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, on which he has constructed his granary house, one Kutcha house and used as a kitchen garden. The petitioner claims that the said plot of land is under the occupation and possessionof the petitioner’s family since time immemorial and the same was inherited from his father. There was no dispute at any point of time with regard to the peaceful possession, except the present one. 4. It is contended that after proper physical verification, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro issued a Land Possession Certificate (LPC), being No. LMZ/LPCZ/37/07/15 dated 20.08.2009, indicating that the said plot of land is free from all encumbrances as per the available record on that date, thereby confirming the possession of the petitioner. 5. While the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the said land, the Ziro Market Welfare Committee and the Executive Engineer, Ziro Electrical Division, lodged a complaints before the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, seeking cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate dated 20.08.2009, issued in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the complaints, the Deputy Commissioner, issued an order dated 08.07.2015, whereby a physical verification of the disputed land wasscheduled for 23.07.2015. 6. Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.07.2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, Page No.# 4/15 roughly visited the disputed area and leftwithout conducting any proper measurement. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Zirowas accompanied by the Members of the Bazar Welfare Committee and the Officersfrom the Power Department, and they refused to hear the suggestion and clarificationof the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District has passed the impugned order dated 07.09.2015, after two months, whereby the LPC dated 20.08.2009 is shown to be cancelled. 7. Mr. Tari, learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro has arrived at a conclusion in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without proper verification of the disputed land. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to place his case before the impugned order was passed. As the issues are disputed, proper opportunity ought to have been given to the parties to place their cases. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, with a pre- determined mind had passed the impugned order cancelling the valid Land Possession Certificate,thereby depriving the petitioner of his property without any authority of law, in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Shri Debasis Das & Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 andToko Yaro & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.,reported in2013 (5) GLT 62, to submit that the principle of natural justice was violated Page No.# 5/15 and the action taken by the respondents,come within the purview of the mischief of violation of natural justice. 9. Ms. G.Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocatefor the State, submits that on the complaint of the Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee and the Department of Power, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Zirohaving found that there is some contradiction in the map and descriptionof the land, decided to have a physical verification, which was carried out in the presence of all the parties on 23.07.2015, with prior notice to the petitioner and the complainants. The order dated 08.07.2015 for physical verification was communicated to the petitioner and the complainants. 10. She submits that on physical verification, it was found that the plot of land claimed by the petitioner, for which an LPC was issued, falls above the PWD road within Old Ziro Putu area, which is a Government revenue land. It does not come within the Kundo area, which is a private land area and falls below the PWD road. Moreover, the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner overlaps the already allotted land of the Ziro ElectricDivision, Department of Power. The Department of Power has already established switchyard in the plot and also had constructed many MIBT Quarters and a Bachelor Barrack at the disputed plot to accommodate its staffs. It was also foundthat the petitioner has no any structure within the area, except for a bamboo fencing to show his occupation, wherein 3(three) MIBTstructures of the Power Department stands.She submits that the Land Possession Certificate is issued only to private and community land and the same is not issued inrespect of the Government land.As the Old Ziro Putu is a Government land, the land can Page No.# 6/15 be allotted to an individual by way of allotment after following due procedure. In view of the above, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District has passed the impugned judgment and order cancelling the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality, as the same has been passed after physical verification of the land in the presence of all the parties, including the petitioner, and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, submits that since the issue involves serious disputed question of facts, the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, at best, could claim his relief by way of a title suit or suit for declaration of rights, possession, interest and title over the disputed land before the appropriate Civil court. 12. On merit, Mr. Tama, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had played fraud in obtaining the Land Possession Certificate against the Government land, that too witha government structure already allotted to the Power Department. After conducting spot verification and proving a hearing to the parties and givingan opportunity, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District has cancelled the Land Possession Certificate of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was duly put on notice vide order dated 08.07.2015, and accordingly, the physical verification was conducted on 23.07.2015 in the presence of the petitioner, and as such, the claim of the petitioner of not being provided an opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted.He submits that the disputedland falls within the Ziro Putu area, Page No.# 7/15 which has beendonated to the Government for the purpose of establishing infrastructures and administrative setup by the people of the area, to which the petitioner has illegally occupied. The respondent No.4, being the donor of the land at Ziro Putu area, has the right to protect the same until the land is utilised for the purpose of which it was donated to the Government. Therefore, apart from the writ petition being not maintainable, the Land Possession Certificate having been obtained by the petitioner illegally, the petitioner has no right over the land and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have consideredthe submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 14. The petitioner essentially claims that the impugnedjudgment and order dated 07.09.2015, has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, as the same was passed after a gap of 2(two) months from the date of physical verification of the disputed land, and that too, without considering the stand of the petitioner at the time of physical verification. 15. In order to appreciate, the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2015,is extracted hereinbelow: “ IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY COMMISSIOONER ZIRO ::LOWER SUBANSIRI DISTRICT(A.P.) SHRI KAGO NIME -VRS- STATE OF AP & ORS Page No.# 8/15 JUDGEMENT ORDER The Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee, Ziro submitted a petitionMemo.No.OZMWC/GS-67/15-86 Dtd 30/3/2015 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro with a prayer to cancel the Land Possession Certificate of Shri Kago Nime issued to him vide DC's Ziro order No. LMZ/LPCZ/37/07/15 dtd 20th Aug 2009 for 1729.70 sqmtr at Kundu Area, Ziro. Only recently, while pursuing the encroachment cases of Old Ziro Putu and Suluya, the alleged LPC of Sri Kago Nime S/o Lt. Kago Jarbo village Hija had come to light in the back-drop of hearing stage of an appeal for quashing and setting aside of impugned order Vide No.LMA/APPPA/NEW-1/13/ZP/dtd 24th Nov’ 2014 passed by ADC cum Estate Officer, Ziro. The contention of the Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee, Ziro was that the alleged LPC was issued in Old Ziro Putu area which is a govt. land and not in a private land as claimed by Sri Kago Nime. Further, the plot of land against which the alleged Land Possession Certificate was issued to Sri Kago Nime is found to be overlapping with the plot already allotted and occupied by Ziro Electrical Division, Department of Power, Ziro for Switchyard of Electrical department, Ziro. Further, a representation was also received from Executive Engineer(E) Ziro Electrical Division, department of Power, Ziro vide its letter No.ZED/L-39/2014-15/4810-14 Dtd.31/3/2015 requesting for cancellation of Land Possession Certificate issued to Sri Kago Nime since the alleged Land Possession Certificate falls within the land allotted for 33/11 KV,2x5MVA Sub-station at Old Ziro. Moreover, the land measuring Page No.# 9/15 13,303.00sqmtrs was allotted to the Executive Engineer (E) Department of Power, Ziro for establishment of Switchyard in the year 1998 which was much earlier than the alleged LPC which was issued in the year 2009. Heard the parties. Perused the case records. As per the alleged LPC records; the plot falls within Kundo area. Whereas the Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee, Ziro has claimed that the plot of alleged LPC falls within govt. revenue land of Ziro Putu and overlaps the already allotted plot of Switchyard area of department of Power, Ziro. A circular road constructed by PWD department running around the base of hillock at Old Ziro area marks the boundary between the Old Ziro Putu area and the Kundo area. The Old Ziro Putu area which falls above this circular road is a govt. revenue land whereas the land below this road is private land which includes Kundo area. Since, there was a contradiction in the claim of the parties regarding the exact location of the plot of alleged Land Possession Certificate; a physical verification of the location was carried out by the court in presence of both the parties and the officers of power department on 27/7/2015. On physical verification, it was found that the plot of the alleged LPC falls above the PWD road within Old Ziro Putu area which is a govt. revenue land. It does not come within Kundo area which is private land area falling below the PWD road. Moreover, the plot of the alleged LPC overlaps the already allotted land of the Ziro Electrical Division, Deptt. of Power, Ziro. The Deptt of Power Ziro has already established Switchyard at the plot. Moreover, the Power department Ziro had constructed many MIBT quarters and a bachelors barrack at the disputed plot to Page No.# 10/15 accommodate its staffs. Shri Kago Nime has got no any structure at the site except for a bamboo fencing to show his occupation wherein also three MIBT structures of Power department stands. Moreover, LPC is issued against only to private or community land.It is not issued in Govt. revenue land. Old Ziro Putu is a govt.revenue land. Only Land Allotment order is issued by govt. In govt. revenue land after following due procedure. After considering the above discussion; I am of the view that the LPC No.LMZ/LPCZ/37/07/15 vdtd 20th Aug 2009 for 1729.70sqmtrs at Old Ziro Putu area was wrongly issued to Sri Kago Nime Sri Kago Nime had hidden many facts about the status of the plot before the authorities While applying for LPC against this plot of land. Therefore, I find it appropriate to cancel the LPC No.LMZ/LPCZ- 37/07/15 dtd 20 August 2009 issued to Sri Kago Nime. Henceforth, the alleged Land Possession Certificate will have no any locus standi. The alleged Land Possession Certificate of Sri Kago Nime is hereafter cancelled and may be treated as withdrawn by competent authority. The case is disposed of with the above direction. (Kanki Darang) Deputy Commissioner Lower Subansiri District Ziro Dated Ziro the 7th Sept 2015 Memo No.LMZ/APPA/New-1/13/ZP/KNI(1)/1923 Copy to: 1. Shri Kago Nime son of Kago Jarbo of Hija village for information. Page No.# 11/15 2. The Chairman/Secretary, Old Ziro Market Welfare Committee, Ziro for information. 3. The Estate Officer, Ziro for information and necessary action. 4. The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, Ziro for information and necessary action. 5. Office Copy.” 16. Perusal of the above judgment and order 07.09.2015, indicates that the parties were heard. It reflects that uponphysicalverification, the plot of land for which the Land Possession Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner falls above the PWD road within the Old Ziro Putu area, which is a Government land. The land does not fall within the Kundo area,which is a private land located below the PWD road. The plot of land for which the Land Possession Certificate in favour is issued overlapswith the area already allottedto the Ziro Electrical Division, Department of Power. The Department ofPower had already established switchyard and constructed many MIBT Quartersand a bachelorbarrack over the plot of land to accommodate its staffs. It also reflects that the petitioner has no structure at the site, except for a bamboo fencing in order show his occupation wherein 3(three)MIBT structures of Power Department stands. It has been observed that the Land Possession Certificate is issued only for the private or community land and is not issued for the Government land. The Government land is allowed to the individual and Departments by way of an allotment after due procedure is followed. 17. On consideration, it is noticed that although the petitioner was put on notice vide order dated 08.07.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Page No.# 12/15 Subansiri District, for physical verification of the disputed land and consequently, the land was verified physically on 23.07.2015 in the presence of the complainants and the petitioner,there is no record to show that the petitioner was issued noticeproviding an opportunity ofhearing before the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2015 was passed, except recording that the parties were heard. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debasis Das (Supra) has held which is reproduced herein under: “ 15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated Page No.# 13/15 case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1963 (143) ER 414), the principle was thus stated: "Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though should not eat". Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. 16. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. What is meant by the term 'principles of natural justice' is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in Ray v. Local Government Board (1914) 1 KB 160 at p.199:83 LJKB 86) described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Sanckman (1943 AC 627:(1948) 2 All ER 337), Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt 'to force it into any procusteam bed' and mentioned that one essential requirement was that the Tribunal should be impartial and have no personal interest in the controversy, and further that it should give 'a full and fair opportunity' to every party of being heard.” 19. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated Page No.# 14/15 07.09.2015, this Court finds that no notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, prior to the issuance of the impugned judgment and order cancelling the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Thus, there is a violation of the principle of natural justice, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, is not sustainable in law, anddeserves to be interfered with. 20. Regard being had to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, that since the petitioner has obtained the Land Possession Certificate by playing fraud, this Court finds that there is no record to support such a claim. The Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner may be irregular, but it does not indicate playing fraud while obtaining the said Land Possession Certificate. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, has also held that the Land Possession Certificate issued overlaps the land already allotted to the Power Department and it does not fall within the Kundo area. 21. Withregard to the maintainability of the writ petition, since the core issueto be determined is whether the cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was passed without hearing the petitioner in violationof the principle of natural justice, this Court is of the view that the writ petition would be maintainable, as the issue is not to decidewhether the land belongs to the petitioner or is a Government land. Thus, the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents are considered for rejection. Page No.# 15/15 22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering that the petitioner was not issued notice and not provided an opportunity of hearing, which amounts to a violation of the principle of natural justice, before the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2015 was passed, I am of the view that the cancellation of Land Possession Certificate in favour of the petitioner without hearing is not sustainable. Accordingly, same is set aside. 23. The respondent authorities are directed to re-consider the validity of the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, including the petitioner. The exerciseshall be completed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant