Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040017422024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/592/2024 Smti Tilu Phukon, aged about 55 years, Wife of Pratik Phukon, resident of Likabali, PO and PS Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Land and Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Director Land and Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 5:The District Land and Revenue Settlement Officer Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Tugo Gangkak Son of Late Yomtu Gangkak resident of Gangkak Village PO and PS Yomcha Page No.# 2/8 District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Reken Ingo, Jumken Ete,Tali Umbey,Aruna Rai,K Tasso Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. G. Ete, GA (AP), Mr. J. Jini, Mr. A T Tara, Mr. Taying Nega, Mr. Tao Tarin,Mr. Binter Picha, Date of Hearing& Judgment : 02.07.2025 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Mr. R. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the private respondent No.6. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, Likabali, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate from the land within a period of 1(one) week and in the event of non- compliance of the Notice, eviction process shall be carried out by deploying the police force. 3. The brief facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that she is an old widow, aged about 60 years, having three children and living alone in a semi-RCC building constructed on a self-acquired plot of land, measuring about 250 sq.mtrs. located at Lipu Market Line, Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh since 2010. The land in question has been purchased from one Shri Puneswar Gogoi, for a sum of Rs.11,000/- in the year 2010. Page No.# 3/8 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner is bounded on three sides by the plot of land measuring about 940.50 sq.mtrs. owned by the respondent No.6. On the written complaint filed by the respondent No.6 on 29.10.2024, before the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, Likabali, inter-alia alleging that the petitioner is unauthorisedly residing on his plot, for which she had already taken a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) from the respondent No.6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, has acted on the complaint of the respondent No.6 and sought to deprive the petitioner from her legally owned plot of land and the residence, by issuing the impugned notice. 5. Mr. R. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, without issuance of proper notice had fixed the matter for hearing on 18.11.2024. However, due to the ill health of the petitioner, she could not attend the hearing. Thereafter, the matter was again fixed on 26.11.2024, the petitioner being the genuine owner of the land, had appeared and submitted the sale documents, which shows that the land in question was purchased from one Shri Puneswar Gogoi on 11.08.2010. However, same has not been properly considered by the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that although no proper opportunity was granted to submit the documents, the petitioner was compelled to appear. The documents including the Sale Deed have not been considered. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not properly heard in violation of the principle of natural justice, and as such, the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang Page No.# 4/8 District, Likabali, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that on the complaint filed by the respondent No.6, the Deputy Commissioner, in his capacity as District Magistrate, had heard the matter by providing an opportunity to the parties including the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate her claim, but she has failed to furnish any documentary evidence during the time of hearing. The respondent No.6 has furnished the documentary evidence in original, including the Land Possession Certificate and Periodic Khiraj Patta, duly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, Assam. Upon consideration, it was found that the land belongs to the respondent No.6. Thereby, the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, had to be issued, and as such, no illegality can be attributed to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, for issuance of such vacation notice, as the petitioner is found to be in illegal occupation of the land of the respondent No.6 7. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the dispute has already been settled by the appropriate forum, vide Keba decision dated 06.05.2019. During the Keba proceedings, despite several opportunities, the petitioner neither attended the Keba proceedings nor submitted any documents in support of her claim. Even after the decision of the Keba in favour of the respondent No.6, since the petitioner continued to occupy the land illegally, the respondent No.6 having no alternative, had to approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Jini submits that although, the petitioner failed to attend the Keba Page No.# 5/8 proceedings, after the decision, she has sought 5(five) days time to vacate the land. 8. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner has granted enough opportunities to substantiate her claim, and after hearing her, the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, has been issued. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality in issuance of the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, as it is now settled that the land belongs to the respondent No.6 and the petitioner is an illegal occupant. Mr. Jini, further submits that the petitioner being a non-local in the State of Arunachal Pradesh does not have the right to occupy any land, however, the respondent No.6 has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner, which has been duly acknowledged on 24.10.2019 for the cost of SPT type shop/stall construction over the land. 9. Rejoining his submissions, Mr. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the payment and receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs are concerned, the petitioner has lodged an FIR dated 29.11.2024, before the Officer-in-Charge, Likabali Police Station, which is pending enquiry. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the alleged payment of the said amount towards the cost of SPT type shop/stall construction over the land. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 11. The plot of land, measuring 250 sq.mtrs., on which, the petitioner constructed a semi-RCC building at Lipu Market Line, Likabali, Lower Siang Page No.# 6/8 District, and the land measuring 940.50 sq.mtr. owned by the respondent No.6, appears to be in the same area. The respondent No.6 has the valid Land Possession Certificate and also appears to have Periodic Khiraj Patta, duly issued by the Deputy Commissioners of Lower Siang District and the Dhemaji District. 12. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 appears to have been settled in a joint meeting of the Gaon Burahs of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam Counterparts, held on 06.05.2019, at Likabali under the aegis of the Galo-Missing Coordination Committee, by settling the matter amicably. The petitioner, however, appears to have not present in the said meeting/Keba, although it indicates that she was repeatedly requested to appear before the Committee and to provide authentic documents to substantiate her claim of ownership over the land in question. The petitioner also appears to have sought for five days time to vacate the land after the decision of the aforesaid Committee. However, she continues to reside on the said plot of land. 13. Pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent No.6, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District has taken up the matter, thereby, conducted a hearing on 2(two) days, i.e., 18.11.2024 and 26.11.2024, by which, it is indicated that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of not only oral hearing but also to furnish the documents to substantiate her claim over the land in question. The Deputy Commissioner, having concluded that the petitioner has failed to furnish any documents in support of her claim, and having found that the respondent No.6 has the documents, including the Land Possession Certificate issued by the Deputy Page No.# 7/8 Commissioner, Likabali, Lower Siang District and the Periodic Khiraj Patta, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, Assam, the petitioner was directed to vacate the land within 1(one) week and in the event of non- compliance, the administration would carry out the eviction process. 14. Having considered the submissions and the materials available on record, it is noticed that the petitioner is originally from the State of Assam, who is residing at Likabali since the year 2010, by allegedly purchased a plot of land from one Shri Puneswar Gogoi. The respondent No.6 is owning a plot of land measuring 940.50 sq.mtrs. having the Land Possession Certificate and Periodic Khiraj Patta. The Committee consists of Galo-Missing Coordination Committee, under the aegis of Galo-Missing communities, has taken up the matter for amicable settlement and accordingly, settled the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6, however, the decision was not adhered to by the petitioner. It appears that the said Keba is not a legally recognized forum, as the Committee, although, consists of Gaon Burahs from both the State, Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam was only for amicable settlement. 15. Upon consideration of the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, Likabali, I find that the said notice of vacation has been issued on the ground that the respondent No.6 is having the valid documents in support of his claim over the land in question. However, as a Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, seeking to carry out the eviction by deploying the police force would not be permissible under the Page No.# 8/8 law, inasmuch as the land in question is evidently a private plot of land between the two private individuals, which cannot be said to be a public premises under the law. 16. Having considered above, since the dispute appears to have not been settled through a legally recognized forum, either by way of Keba proceedings or any other appropriate proceedings, having the authority and jurisdiction to decide the land dispute, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to avail the appropriate remedy under the law. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, without going into the merit of claims and counter-claims of the parties with regard to ownership over the land in question, interest of justice would be served, if the parties are directed to avail the appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands closed, with liberty to the parties to avail the appropriate remedy under the law, within a period of 1(one) month from today. 18. Needless to observe that, the parties may approach the appropriate forum/Civil Court, which shall take up the matter and pass necessary order(s) in accordance with the law, including the injunction order, if any. Till such time, the impugned Vacation Notice dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lower Siang District, Likabali shall not be given effect to. 19. The writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant