Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040011212023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/397/2023 Tallam Har Neelam and 8 Ors. S/o Lt. Neelam Teli, R/o Neelam Village, PO Deed, PS Yachuli, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal P radehs. M. No 9436416072 2: Neelam Sanjay alias Apo Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Tayam R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Neelam Obi Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Taje R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Neelam Oley Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Takhe R/o Neelam Village Page No.# 2/15 PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Neelam Lachum @ Laxman Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Talam R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Neelam Sonia Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Tatum R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Neelam Rajen Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Sorvi R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Neelam Rama Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Tajam R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/15 9: Neelam Togu Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Totum R/o Neelam Village PO Deed PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF AP and 5 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:the Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Ziro Lower Subansiri District Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:the Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:the District Horticulture Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Yachuli District Lower Subansiri Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 5:the Horticulture Development Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Yachuli District Lower Subansiri Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Likha Yana Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 4/15 W/o Shri Likha Heli R/o New Pania Village PO/PS Yachuli Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Y Mugli,Riya Sarkar,Kirmani Lollen,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Horticulture),Tsering Gyatso,Jambey Tsering,Sumit Chhetri,Habung Aape,N Tajung,T Lampung,G Kamduk,Khoda Tama :::BEFORE::: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 26-06-2025 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms R. Basar, learned Government Advocate, for State respondents No.1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the Order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner has directed for assessment of loss sustained by the respondent No.6 on her garden, on the basis of the final report of the Investigating Officer of Police Station, Ziro and the consequential Loss Assessment Report dated 29.03.2022, reflecting an amount of Rs.49,50,00,000/- (Rupees forty-nine crore fifty lakhs) only on Page No.# 5/15 account of damage of Apple and Kiwi plants. 3. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the petitioners and the respondent No.6 are having a dispute over the community land at Philli Seth, New Pania under Deed Circle, Ziro-II in the District of Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh since 2008. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 in a most clandestine manner has obtained Land Possession Certificate (LPC in short) vide LPC No. LMZ/LPC/P-8/2007/1298 dated 27.02.2008. The said LPC was, however, cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro on 16.05.2019, pursuant to the complaint lodge by the petitioners under the banner of Neelam Natural Resources Committee. 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.6, approached this Court against the cancellation of the LPC, by way of writ petition being WP(C) No.173(AP)/2019 and WP(C) No.134(AP)/2019. The writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2020 by this Court setting aside the cancellation of LPC dated 16.05.2019 for having found that no notice was issued to the petitioner and neither was any opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner prior to the issuance of order of cancellation of LPC. The respondent authorities were given the liberty to reconsider the validity of the petitioner’s LPC afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 29.03.2022, after hearing the parties, directed the parties to contest their case in Title Suit No. 07/2019 before the Court of Civil Judge Page No.# 6/15 (Sr. Division), Ziro which has been filed by the respondent No.6 against the petitioners and the petitioners have also filed a counter claim in the title suit seeking for cancellation of LPC issued to the respondent No.6, which is pending. 6. The respondent No.6 by way of Misc Case No.55/2019 in Title Suit No.07/2019, before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of commission for scientific investigation in respect of loss assessment for Kiwi, Apple and Tea plants which had been damaged on 27.05.2019. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) vide order dated 13.11.2019 having considered that the defendants (petitioners herein) may alter the nature of suit property by causing more damage to the suit land by uprooting horticulture trees including Kiwi and Tea plants and restoration whereof would be difficult had passed ad interim temporary injunction, which is extracted herein below:- “a) A commission is hereby Issued and the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro Is directed to constitute a board of experts to carry out technical assessment of the properties damaged on 27-05-19 in the suit land. The commission shall submit its report within 3(three) weeks from today. However, In the interest of justice, it is directed that board shall give notice to the respondents/defendants and allow them to participate during the process of assessment, in order not to cause any prejudice to them. b) The respondents/defendants are directed not to obstruct the applicant and her laborers from entering into the suit land so as to allow them to pluck/harvest the tea leaves and kiwi in the suit land. c) The respondents/defendants are directed/restrained not to alienate and alter the status of suit land by cutting down of plantations or by making fresh Page No.# 7/15 plantation in the suit land, in any form or manner.” 7. Thereafter, the DC constituted a board of officers/experts for assessment of the loss on the account of the damage cause on the horticulture plants in the disputed land vide order dated 28.03.2022. Accordingly, on 29.03.2022, the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and District Development Officer, Yachuli submitted a loss assessment report amounting to Rs.49,50,00,000/- (Rupees forty-nine crore fifty lakhs)only on the basis of the departmental existing rate of compensation basing on the FIR and charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in Ziro PS case No. 20/2019. 8. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the loss assessment report dated 29.03.2022 as prepared and submitted by the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and the Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2022, and accepted by the Deputy Commissioner thereof, is without visiting the place of incident and behind the back of the petitioners, which clearly in violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has not acted upon the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn,) by constituting a board of experts to carry out technical assessment of the properties damaged on 27.05.2019 in the suit land within a period of 3 months. The order of Deputy Commissioner is based on the application submitted by the respondent No.6 dated 25.02.2022, before him for constitution of an experts/Horticulture Officers to assess the damages of properties occurred on 27.05.2019, on the basis of the FIR dated Page No.# 8/15 27.05.2019 and the charge sheet No. 07/2019 dated 10.07.2019 in connection with Ziro P.S Case No.20/2019, after a gap of 2 (two) years from the date of order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). 9. He submits that initially, the representation of the private respondent was endorsed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Yachuli. Thereafter, Additional Deputy Commissioner submitted the report to the effect that 3 (three) attempts were made by the department to assess the actual damages but it could not be done due to mass protest from the people of Neelam village and there is no seizure memo in the charge sheet against the property damages as alleged. The photographs in the charge sheet is not seems to be certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the office was not in a position to calculate the damages and conduct the verification and assess the actual damages at the place of occurrence. Therefore, suggested for constitution of a committee to assess the actual damages. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri on the received of said report from the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 24.03.2022, has passed the order dated 28.03.2022 and directed the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli to carry out the assessment for calculation of the damages on the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer purely based upon charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial court. Pursuant thereto, District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli, on the very next day i.e on 29.03.2022, without visiting the field, and without giving notice to the petitioners, has prepared the impugned loss assessment report amounting Page No.# 9/15 to Rs.49,50,00,000/- (Rupees forty-nine crore fifty lakhs) only. Therefore, he submits that direction to prepare loss assessment basing on the charge sheet and the loss assessment report by the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli, are liable to be set aside and quashed, as the order and the assessment is without visiting the place of damages and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 10. Ms. R. Basar, learned State Counsel submits that as per the record, the loss assessment report dated 29.03.2022 was prepared and submitted by the respondent No. 4 and 5 on the basis of application dated 24.02.2022 submitted by the private respondent basing on the FIR dated 27.05.2019 and the charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 submitted by the Investigating Officer of the case against the petitioners in connection with Ziro P.S. Case No. 20/2019. She submits that prior to passing of the order dated 13.11.2019 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), the respondent authority had already exhausted to carry out the assessment of the properties damaged on several occasion which could not be done due to mass protest by people of Neelam villlage as there was no chance to access to the place of occurrence for assessment even if the board of experts could have been constituted for the same and therefore, lost assessment report was prepared basing on the charge sheet. 11. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the Deputy Commissioner issued an order to assess the damage by the Board of officers, for which, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Yachuli was deputed to perform magistrate duty on the date of assessment. On 30.08.2019 when the board of officers attempted to assess the damages Page No.# 10/15 of the garden, the petitioner led the mob armed with lethal weapons and restrained the team of officers duly constituted by the Deputy Commissioner. During the confrontation, the petitioners have openly stated that they do not respect the order of Deputy Commissioner and told the board of officers if there is any order from the court they will be allowed to assess the land due to which the assessment could not be done, apprehending law and order problem. Having no alternatives, the respondent No.6 approached to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro for necessary direction. Accordingly, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro vide order 13.11.2019 in Misc Case No. 55/2019, directed the Deputy Commissioner to constituted a Board to assess the damage and submit the report to the court. 12. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.12.2019 constituted a Board of officers for loss assessment and on 23.12.2019, after giving prior information to the petitioners, proceeded towards garden to assess the damages, the petitioners for the second time led the mob armed with lethal weapons and restrained the officers from carrying out the assessment and even threaten the son of respondent No.6 and tried to assault, for which, son of the respondent No.6 had to run for his life. The son of respondent No.6 has also filed criminal complaint before the court about the incident dated 23.12.2019 where the wards of officers constituted to assess the damages were threatened and manhandled gheraoed with lethal weapons by the petitioners which is being registered as CR. Case No.10/2023, the same is pending trial before the court. Page No.# 11/15 13. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner has made a report to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro that the order passed by the court could not be complied with due to public outraged led by the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro had directed the Extra-Assistant Commissioner (EAC) Judicial-cum-Executive Magistrate to get recorded the statement of the officers among who were restrained and mishandled by the petitioners. He submits that having found no other option to get loss assessment on the request of the respondent No.6, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order and accordingly, the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli had submitted the loss assessment based on the department rate. He submits that since the petitioners had led the mob restraining the officers from visiting the garden for physical assessment of loss by respondent No.6, there is no question of violation of principle of natural justice as they have illegally restrained the Board of officers from assessing the damage in their presence. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that it is the petitioners who had repeated use the force and restrained the Government Officers and never allowed to assess the damages since the year 2019. 14. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The dispute relates to the land measuring 211.31 hectares of land for which LPC was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro in the year 2008. The respondent No.6 claims that land is being used for planting various horticulture plants. The petitioner disputed the title of the land. Page No.# 12/15 The LPC vide No.LMZ/LPC/P-8/2007/1298 dated 27.02.2008 issued in favour of the private respondent No.6 was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro vide order dated 16.05.2019, against which the respondent No.6 approached this Court whereby the cancelation of LPC was set aside and quashed vide the order dated 12.02.2020 with a liberty to respondent authority to re-consider, as this court found that cancellation was done without notice and hearing to the respondent No.6 which violates the principle of natural justice. In the meantime, respondent No.6 has instituted Title Suit being TS. No.07/2019 before the competent civil court at Ziro, wherein, the petitioners had also filed counter claim which is pending. 16. It appears that on account of the land dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.6, damages were caused to the horticulture plants, which have been cultivated by the respondent No.6 in the disputed land. It is seen that the respondent No.6 had approached the Deputy Commissioner for assessment of the loss caused to the horticulture plants by the petitioners in the disputed land. The respondent authorities had constituted a committee for assessment of the loss cause to the respondent No.6, however, the petitioners appears to have restrained/blocked the board of officers from physical assessment. 17. The respondent No.6 filed a Misc. Case No.55/2019 in the Title Suit No. 07/2019 praying for appropriate relief before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro vide order dated 13.11.2019 had directed the Deputy Commissioner to constitute a Page No.# 13/15 board of officers for assessment of the damage of the horticulture plants in the disputed land. Accordingly, the board was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, however, even the board of officers were restrained from the side of the petitioners, for which, physical assessment could not be made. 18. Facing with such circumstances, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has passed the impugned order 28.03.2022 directing the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli to assess the loss of Horticulture garden of respondent No.6 basing upon the final report of the Investigating Officer in connection with Ziro P.S Case 20/2019 under Sections 447/427/436 IPC. Accordingly, the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli vide letter dated 29.03.2022 submitted the assessment report which was made as per the charge sheet of Ziro P.S. Case 20/2019 showing loss assessment of damages of horticulture plants to a tune of Rs.49,50,00,000/- (Rupees forty-nine crore fifty lakhs) only showing the production and economic/ turnover of Kiwi and Apple plants. It is noticed that the respondent has also filed money suit for payment of the above amount of Rs.49,50,00,000/- (Rupees forty-nine crores fifty lakhs)only as per the loss assessment report which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. T. T. Tara to the effect that loss assessment has been made by the respondents, District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli based on the charge sheet of Ziro police Page No.# 14/15 station without visiting the place of damages which violates the principle of natural justice is considered for rejection, inasmuch as, record reveals that as and when the Board of officers were constituted for assessment of the damages with notice to the petitioners, not only once, the petitioners appears to have restrain the board of officers from visiting the disputed land for assessment of the damages. It is also seen that even after the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro, when the board of officers attempted to visit the disputed land for loss assessment, they were again restrained from the side of the petitioners. 20. No doubt the assessment ought to have been made physically after visiting the place of damages and also by providing opportunity of being heard to the parties. In view of the facts and circumstances, as noted herein above, it would not be appropriate to insist for physical assessment of the damages as the Board of officers constituted for the purpose were again and again restrained from visiting the land in question. 21. Having considered that the board of officers duly constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro for physical assessment of the damages of the horticulture plants in the disputed land were restrained by the petitioners before and after the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro dated 13.11.2019, this Court is of the view that the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 28.03.2022 and the loss assessment report submitted by the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli on 29.03.2022 cannot be said to have been made without hearing the petitioner and/or behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, question of violation of natural justice does not arise Page No.# 15/15 22. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there is no violation of principle of natural justice in passing the order for assessment by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District and the consequential loss assessment report by the District Horticulture Officer, Ziro and Horticulture Development Officer, Yachuli. Accordingly, writ petition stand dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost. 23. It is observed that since the Money Suit No.28/2022 is pending before the competent civil court, the same shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced by the dismissal of this writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant