Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040009022025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) WP(C)/397/2022 Joel Bam @ Tari Bam Age: 48 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tanya Bam by occupation Pastor by caste APST Galo Resident of Bilat C.O H.Q Town PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 8119830021 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Department of Land Management 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Circle Officer cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Bilat Circle District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for : T Torum Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors.: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, respectively. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 26.06.2025 Heard Mr. A. Bodo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Basar, learned State counsel for State respondents. 2. Petitioner claims to be in possession of land since 1980, on which, he has constructed his house on 1000 Sq. Mtrs, this writ petition is instituted praying for a declaration that the petitioner is eligible for claiming right over his occupied land under the principle of adverse possession. 3. The brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner has occupied a plot of land measuring 12000 Sq. Mtrs in the year, 1980 by clearing the jungles and developed the same for Agriculture and Horticulture purpose at Bilat-Bamin village, Pasighat in the District of East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. However, the petitioner is now occupying only 1000 Sq. Mtrs, on which, he has constructed his residential house and staying with his family members. 4. Mr. Bodo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although no specific prayer has been made, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Estate Officer, Bilat, East Siang District, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the land within a period of one month from the date of the order and also the order dated Page No.# 3/6 14.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, whereby the appeal under Section 12 of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 has been dismissed by up- holding the order of the Estate Officer. He submits that in view of long period of possession over the land and the principle of adverse possession, the petitioner cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupant and he is entitled to claim over the plot of land. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted and direction may be issued not to evict the petitioner and allowed him to retain the plot of land measuring 1000 Sq. Mtrs. 5. Ms. R. Basar, learned State counsel submits that the land measuring about 180 Acres at Bilat- Bamin Village, East Siang District has been notified by the State for the purpose of establishment of Circle Headquarter at Bilat-Bamin which was voluntarily donated by the public of the Bamin- Bilat village on 22.02.2002. She submits that the petitioner is not an original inhabitant of Bilat-Bamin Village, he is a mere encroacher over the land. Since the land has already been notified for the establishment of Circle Headquarter, the claim of possession over the plot of land in the area is nothing but a mere encroachment and as such, the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim over the said land as he is an unauthorized occupant. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the plot of land under the occupation of the petitioner is a part of the land measuring 180Acres which has been notified for establishment of Circle Headquarter at Bilat-Bamin, Pasighat in the East Siang District which has been voluntarily donated by the public of Bilat- Page No.# 4/6 Bamin village. It is also admitted position that the petitioner is not an original inhabitant of the Bilat-Bamin village rather unauthorizedly in occupation over the portion of the land which has already been notified by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for establishment of Circle Headquarter. 8. It is noted that the basis of the claim over the plot of land is to the effect that the petitioner’s father had occupied the land in the year, 1980 which was a community land. At the relevant point of time, the people were allowed to settle on the community land and the petitioner had no knowledge when the community land was donated to the Government. Thus, the relief to declare the petitioner to have a right over the plot of land under the principle of adverse possession cannot be accepted as there is no documents to show that the petitioner’s father has occupied the land. Rather, the land belonged to the people of Bilat-Bamin village who has already donated the land for establishment of Circle Headquarter. It is also seen that the People of Bilat-Bamin have donated the land by way of deed of agreement dated 22.02.2002. Thereafter, the State Government issued a final notification on 22.02.2002 by following the due process of law. As the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied over the Government land which have been declared for establishment of Circle Headquarter in the interest of the public, the claim of possession of the said land since many months or years cannot be accepted at all. 9. In the case of Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah; reported in (2019) 15 SCC 756, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under and the relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:- “18. What is “adverse possession” and on whom the burden of proof lies and Page No.# 5/6 what should be the approach of the courts while dealing with such plea have been the subject-matter of a large number of cases of this Court. 19. In T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, this Court held that mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the classical requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owners' title. 20. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, this Court again in Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao in para 14 held as under: (SCC pp. 321-22) “14. In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said is that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within twelve years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of twelve years thereafter.” 21. Keeping in view the law relating to the adverse possession quoted above, when we examine the case at hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the courts below were not justified in holding that the defendants have perfected their title over the suit land qua the plaintiff by virtue of their adverse possession over the suit land. This we say for the following reasons”. 10. Having considered above, I am of the considered view that the impugned eviction order as well as the appellate order by the Estate Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat cannot be said to have been passed contrary to the provision of law as it is clearly established that the portion of the land under the occupation of the petitioner is a Government land legally notified for establishment of Circle Headquarter. Page No.# 6/6 11. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, having considered that the petitioner has already constructed his house over 1000 Sq. Mtrs of the said land and staying with his family, the respondent authorities may consider the case of the petitioner for allotment as may be permissible under the law. Petitioner is also at liberty to avail the remedy as may be permissible in law. 12. Interim order, if any, stands automatically merged with this order. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant