Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040010342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/282/2025 Tara Markia Son of Late Tapak Markia, presently residing at Gandhi market, Daporijo, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Circle Officer/ Town Magistrate Age: 0 Occupation : Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Xavier Gyati, Lakhya Narah Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/6 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 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. Page No.# 3/6 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, Page No.# 4/6 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 persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (ii) The notice shall- (a) Specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) Require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises- (i)to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten day from the date issued thereof; and (ii)to appear before the Estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. (iii)The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice Page No.# 5/6 shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (iv)Where the Estate Officer known or has reasons to believe that any person is in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (iii) he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on very such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. “5. (i) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidenced produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under Clause (b) of sub-section (ii) of Section 4, the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are unauthorized occupation, the Estate Office may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises; and (ii) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of its publication under sub-section (i) whichever is later, the Estate Officer or any other officer duly authorized by the Estate Officer in his behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and, may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary”. 10. Having considered the provision of the said Act of 2003, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure as prescribed under the said Act of 2003 as the impugned eviction order has been issued directly under Section 5 (ii) of the said Act of 2003 that too signed by the appellate authority which would not be Page No.# 6/6 permissible. 11. In view of the above, the impugned eviction notice dated 20.06.2025 signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is set aside and quashed. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2003. Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant