THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Itanagar Permanent Bench Writ Petition No. 492(AP)/2022. Shri Kento Eshi (Ori), S/o Late Poken Eshi (Ori), R/o Keno Ori Market, Siyom Colony, Aalo, P.O. & P.S. – Aalo, Dist. – West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, PIN – 791001. …… Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of A.P., Itanagar. 2. The Secretary Land Management, Government of A.P., Itanagar. 3. The Deputy Commissioners, Aalo, Dist. – West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 4. The Commanding Officer, 4 JAK LI Aalo, Dist. – West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 5. The DL & RSO, Aalo under Land Management Department, Dist. – West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 6. The Defense Estate Officer (DEO), Itanagar, Dist. – Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. 7. Shri Gumsen Lollen, S/o Late Tagum Lollen, Vill. – Panya, P.O. & P.S. – Aalo, GAHC040015472022 Dist. – West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, Secretary of the PDBRATBC, (Panya, Dego, Bogdo, Rigo, Along Town Boundary Committee). …… Respondents. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the petitioner :- Mr. C. Modi. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 :- Ms. G. Ete. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 & 6 :- Mr. K. Loya. Advocate for the respondent No. 7 :- Mr. T.T. Tara. Date of Hearing :- 06.06.2025. Date of Judgment & Order :- 21.07.2025. JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5; Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 6; and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 23.09.2022, signed on 10.11.2022. And he also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo to affirm the LPC dated 18.07.2019, issued to the private respondent; and further to direct the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector of Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh not to disburse the compensation amount in respect of the proposed army occupied area at Aalo; and further to ascertain individual land owners of the land in view of the Title Suit No. 59/2008, vide order dated 12.06.2012; and further to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo to produce the records how the undisputed Hissam area falls within the land of Panya, Dego, Bogdo, Rigo, Along Town Boundary Committee (PDBRATBC hereinafter) to be compensated on acquired of 49.63 acres of the land by Indian Army; and also to direct the Deputy Commissioner to produce the record pertaining to the LPC issued to the private respondent lead by respondent No. 7, to unearth the same. Background Facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:- “The Secretary of Land Management and Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had issued one preliminary notification dated 16.08.2021 and 16.09.2021, in respect of acquiring a plot of land, measuring 49.63 acres, for establishment of the Infantry Brigade Headquarter at Aalo by the Indian Army. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an objection petition for the proposal of compensation payment to nine persons from the area, on the ground that he is the one of the land owner having more than 7 acres of land within the army occupied area, but, his name has not been included in the list of beneficiary and the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo denied to hear the counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, vide order dated 02.12.2021, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Then, being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 439(AP)/2022 and vide order dated 14.12.2021, this court had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo to reheard the matter of the petitioner. But, vide order dated 17.03.2022, the matter was disposed without ascertaining the fact that whether the petitioner has land within the army occupied area or not. Then, being aggrieved by the second order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, the petitioner again preferred one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 133(AP)/2022 and vide order dated 04.04.2022, the Deputy Commissioner was specifically asked to take up the matter de-novo for establishment of the right and title. Accordingly, the counsel of the private respondent, the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo has taken up the matter and then a question arose, whether the title issue can be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo after coming into force of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021. Therefore, a Review Petition No. 07(AP)/2022 was filed to ascertain whether the de-novo right and title over the disputed land can be taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo or the same can be referred to the regular Civil Court. Thereafter, the said review petition was disposed on 17.08.2022, whereby the court had cleared that the de- novo hearing over the right and title of the disputed land should be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo himself in the capacity of the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed written objection in response to the said notification, along with all the documents pertaining to his claim over the land, containing 115 pages along with 15 annexures which were marked as A – Q before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 23.09.2022. However, the impugned order dated 10.11.2022, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo without hearing the parties to establish the right and title, as per the direction of this court in the W.P.(C) No. 133(AP)/2022 and vide impugned order, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that neither the petitioner has produced the documentary evidence nor examined any witnesses.” 4. The private respondent Nos. 7 has filed his affidavit-in- opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the petition is not maintainable in law as well as in fact, as the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had issued a Land Ownership Certificate, dated 18.07.2019, being Memo No. LM/WS-1/09/2014, in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and other private individuals of Panya, Dego, Bogdo and Rigo village, on the basis of order dated 12.06.2012, passed by the Additional District & Session Court, Western Zone, Basar, in Title Suit No. BSR/TS-59/08, against Army occupied area, land measuring of 49.63 acres at Bogdo and the said ownership certificate issued for land compensation to the respective beneficiaries as per the preliminary notification dated 16.08.2021, issued by the Secretary (LM), Government of Arunachal Pradesh and issued the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, being Memo No. LM/WS-109/2014(PT)/117, against the present petitioner, on the basis of the Title Suit No. 10/2003. It is also stated that in the schedule of title suit, the area occupied by the army has clearly been described and is different land area and the same land belongs to respondent No. 7 and as such, there is no land in the name of the petitioner out of total 49.63 acres land and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 4.1. It is also stated that the army occupied land, measuring 49.63 acres is located at Bogdo and the present petitioner is not the owner of the said land and he has only a land measuring of 30227.85 sqr. meters, as per the Title Suit No. 10/2003, at Hissam area, which is about 7 acres only. Therefore, the Hissam area does not come into the army occupied area of the PDBR and it is a different area, which is also known as Hissam village and the present petitioner had sold out his land, which was bounded with army occupied land, to the different private individuals, who had constructed their houses and staying at Hissam village, bound with army land, as per the present status report of the Hissam village. 4.2. Further stand of the respondent No. 7 is that the petitioner has failed to produce any documents, witnesses to show that his land is bounded with army occupied land and within the land of army occupied land and that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo. 4.3. Another stand has been taken by the respondent No. 7 that the respondent No. 7 is also one of the beneficiary and he was selected by the villagers (Panya, Dego, Bogdo and Rigo) to represent on their behalf by making a committee PDBRATBC and the Deputy Commissioner had issued Land Ownership Certificate upon respective beneficiaries not LPC (Land Possession Certificate), on the basis of the Title Suit No. BSR/TS-59/08 against army occupied area, land measuring 49.63 acres at Bogdo and it is clear from the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, that the petitioner along with his counsel Mr. Bomyom Ori were given enough opportunities, who submitted written objection on 23.09.2022, and verbal submission also which took place for more than 4 hours of hearing and after hearing both side, Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had examined the documents which were submitted by the parties and later on, passed the impugned order dated 19.10.2022. Therefore, the question of passing the impugned order without hearing does not arise at all. 4.4. It is the further stand of the respondent No. 7 that one Shri Peli Lollen had filed a complaint against the present petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, on 18.12.2006 & 10.01.2007, for cheating and forgery and the petitioner is supposed to bring any kind of land agreement between him and Shri Peli Lollen before this court and he was arrayed as respondent in the instant writ petition and that the army occupied land measuring 49.63 acres ownership/title is in favour of the respondent No. 7 and his parties, as per the Title Suit No. BSR/TS- 59/2008 and the judgment and decree was passed in favour the private respondent No. 7 and his parties, has never been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the title suit judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. BSR/TS- 59/2008 has attained its finality. 4.5. Another stand taken by the respondent No. 7 is that the present petitioner does not belong to the Panya, Dego, Bogdo and Rigo villages and the area, which is under the occupation of the army, was occupied on an emergency ground and the same is an internal matter of the army and respondent No. 7 and his villagers and as such, the writ petitioner has no right to interfere in the matter between the army and respondent No. 7 and his villagers and that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo and the petitioner has not right to challenge the same and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. The respondent Nos. 5. The respondent Nos. 3 & 5 have filed their affidavit-in- opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the respondent authority had duly heard the objection filed by the petitioner and there was no denial for the petitioner to be represented through his counsel and that the date of the impugned order is wrongly mentioned as 10.11.2022, in fact the hearing was conducted on 23.09.2022 and the order was issued on 19.10.2022 and that the claim of the petitioner was rejected as no conclusive documentary evidence or witnesses were produced by him. 5.1. Further stand of the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 is that as per the list of the beneficiaries mentioned in the Notification under Section 11 of the LARA Act, 2013 and as per the judgment of the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Western Zone, Basar dated 12.06.2012, passed in BSR/TS-59/08 (Shri Karge Lollen & Ors vs. Shri Gumsen Lollen, Secretary of PDBRATBC), consequent upon withdrawal of the petitioner Shri Kento Ori from contesting the case in favor of the PDBRATBC villagers, the court has given liberty to the PDBRATBC villagers to furnish the names of individual beneficiaries before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo for payment of adequate compensation to individuals holding the ownership and title of the land measuring 49.63 acres, which are declared as private land and in respect of the contention of the petitioner that his land shall be occupied/acquired by the army without any compensation, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had issued an order vide Memo No. LM/WS-109/2014(Pt)-352-54, dated 17.03.2022, for demarcation of boundary as per relevant provisions of law in presence of the petitioner and the respondent. But, pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 131/2022 filed by the present petitioner for boundary demarcation got cancelled. 5.2. It is the further stand of the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 that there is no question of land belonging to the petitioner in the army occupied area measuring 60,000 sqr. meter as claimed by the petitioner and that the petitioner had himself stated in paragraph No. 18 of this petition that there was an amicable settlement between him and the PDBRATBC in terms of BSR/TS-59/2008, according to which the entire area called Hissam was handed over to him and the land under the army occupied area are to be reverted back to its individual land owners and now, he is re-claiming the army occupied area, which is baseless. Page 10 of 16 5.3. Another stand is that Land Ownership Certificate, dated 18.07.2019, issued from the office of the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 certifying the 9 private respondents, as land owners of the land measuring 49.63 acres under acquisition and as contended by the petitioner no LPC was issued and that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. Submissions:- 6. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impunged order, at page No. 154 of the petition is illegal and arbitrary as the same was being passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without allowing him to adduce documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence. Mr. Modi further submits that there is no dispute that the Hissam land belongs to the petitioner and that the land of the petitioner is occupied by the army and his land is there in the 49.63 acres, so acquired by the State respondents for the army and since his land is also there, he is also entitled to get compensation for the same. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that in the Title Suit No. BSR/TS-59/08, pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Western Zone, Basar, there was an understanding between the parties and the petitioner had withdrawn from contesting the case in favour of the PDBRATBC villagers and the villagers had furnished the name of individual beneficiaries before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo for payment of adequate compensation to the individuals holding the ownership and title measuring 49.63 acres, which were being declared as private land and now the petitioner cannot turn around and his claim over the land falling within the 49.63 acres being acquired by the State respondents has estopped him from making such claim. Mr. Tara further submits that the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo and as such, the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality and therefore, this petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 7, is not maintainable and on such count, it is contended to dismiss the same. 8. Per-contra, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 has pointed out that in a writ proceeding, the disputed question so raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated and that 9 land owner’s certificate was issued in favour of the landowners including the respondent No. 7 and the compensation has also been fixed against the land owners and that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 9. Whereas, Mr. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 6 submits that the respondent Nos. 4 & 6 are not necessary parties as they are the requiring authority and the area of land measuring 49.63 acres is acquired by the State respondents for respondent Nos.4 & 6 and therefore, he has no contention to make before this court. 10. In reply, Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some part of the Hissam land is in occupation of the army. Discussion:- 11. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 23.09.2022, issued on 19.10.2022. 12. That perusal of the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, indicates that the Deputy Commissioner heard Mr. B. Ori, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kento Ori and Mr. M. Nochi, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Gumsen Lollen and also taken note of the order dated 04.04.2022, passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 131(AP)/2022, wherein a direction was issued as under:- "It is for the Deputy Commissioner to give a hearing to the petitioner and determining as to whether the petitioner is the owner of any portion of the land that is acquired, if the result thereof is in affirmative, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to either include the name of the petitioner in the list of beneficiaries for the compensation or else it is for the Deputy Commissioner to exclude the land of the petitioner from the acquisition." 12.1. It also appears from the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner had provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to substantiate his claim, and his counsel, in the last hearing, conducted on 23.09.2022, had submitted a petition containing the contention and claims of the petitioner, which have been thoroughly examined. 12.2. It also appears that the Deputy Commissioner had out lined the claim of the petitioner as under:- “1. The petitioner has claimed that he has procured the Army occupied area (locally called Rago area) as a gift in 1981 from Lt. Hormo Lollen, great grandson of Lt. Kimek Lollen, who was the original owner. (Thus claimed to be owner of entire army occupied area). 2. In the BSR/TS-10/03 (Kento Ori Vrs Diga Tatin & Ors), the District and Sessions Court, Basar has declared the title of the Hissam land measuring an area of 30,227.85 sqm (7 acres approx.) in favour of Sri Kento Ori. (Claimed to have inclusion of 14.826 acres of his Hissam land in the acquired land i.e. 49.63 acres).” 12.3. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner had found that no documentary evidence or witnesses being produced by the petitioner in support of his claim for the ownership of Rago area (army occupied area). Further, the claim of the petitioner of having inclusion of 14.826 acres of his Hissam land in the acquired land, i.e. 49.63 acres, does not hold ground as the order dated 12.06.2012, in BSR/TS-10/03 clearly states that the area of the petitioner is only 30,227.85 sqm which is approximately 7 acres. So, if his entire Hissam land is around 7 acres, there is no possibility of inclusion of 14.826 acres in the acquired land, i.e. 49.63 acres. Moreover, this 7 acres of land are not in possession of the petitioner as he had already sold most of the land to various different private individuals, who had constructed their permanent residences in the Hissam area, adjoining army area. As such, the petitioner has no "Locus Standi" to file claims and objections. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner had found that in view of above and also in pursuance to the order dated 12.06.2012, passed in the BSR/TS-59/08, wherein the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Basar has confirmed the title of the land in question in favour of the PDBRATBC villagers and in absence of any strong evidence from the petitioner's side, he arrived at a finding that the land measuring 49.63 acres belongs to the PDBRATBC villagers and that the petitioner is not the owner of any portion of land that is acquired. Finding:- 13. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this court is of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality and there is no arbitrariness in the same, because it appears that:- (i) The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and he has given the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, who was present on 23.09.2022, with his counsel, Mr. B. Ori and the petitioner was also given the opportunity to produce documentary evidence or witnesses in support of the claim made by him. But, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim that he is the owner of Rago area (army occupied area). (ii) The Deputy Commissioner had found that only 30,227.85 sqm of land, which is approximately 7 acres, belongs to the petitioner and the same was indicated in the order dated 12.06.2012, passed in BSR/TS-10/03 and the said order has not been challenged and as such, had attained finality and that being so, there is no possibility of his claim that 14.826 acres of his land falls in the acquired land, i.e. 49.63 acres. (iii) The 7 acres of land are not in possession of the petitioner as he had already sold most of the land to various different private individuals, who have constructed their permanent residences in the Hissam area adjoining army area. (iv) The learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar, vide order dated 12.06.2012, had confirmed the title of the land in question, i.e. the Rago area in favour of the PDBRATBC villagers and the petitioner could not produce any evidence that his land is in the 49.63 acres which belongs to the PDBRATBC villagers. (v) In the Title Suit No. BSR/TS-59/08 by which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar had confirmed the title in favour of the PDBRATBC villagers and the petitioner in the said title suit had stated that he has no objection in declaring the land measuring 49.63 acres in favour of the PDBRATBC villagers and that being so, the petitioner was estopped by his own conduct in claiming the land of Rago village, i.e. PDBRATBC area. (vi) The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, in Title Suit No. BSR/TS-59/08 had declared in no uncertain terms that the land compensation, against an area of 49.63 acres of private land shall be paid to the land owner of the PDBRATBC and in the BSR/TS-10/03, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.2012, had held that a plot of land measuring 30,227.85 sqm stands confirmed in favour of the petitioner along with the possession and occupation in interest thereon. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, West Siang District, Aalo, within a period of 2(two) months from today. 15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant