Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040017792023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/219/2023 Smti Yame Debom W/o Shri Tasa Dobin, R/o Peon Colony, Daporijo, PO and PS Daporijo, District Upper Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Leyu Gangam Niling and 4 Ors. S/o Shri Diga Niling, R/o Peon Colony, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, Arunachal Pradesh, P.O/P.S Daporijo. 2:The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary (Land Management) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. P.O/P.S Itanagar. 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land record and Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. P.O/P.S Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/7 Upper Subansiri District Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh. P.O/P.S Daporijo 5:The Extra Assistant Commissioner cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Subansiri District AP. P.O/P.S Daporij Advocate for the Petitioner : Duyu Laji, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), L Kurdu Linked Case : WP(C)/355/2023 Leyu Gangam Nilling Age: 25 Occupation : Address:S/o Diga Nilling R/o Peon Colony Upper Subansiri District Daporijo AP. Cont. 9362102805 VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Others Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary (Land Management) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Land record and Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 3/7 Address:Upper Subansiri District Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Extra Assistant Commissioner cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Upper Subansiri District AP 5:Smti Yane Debom Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Peon O/o the Deputy Commissioner Upper Subansiri dist R/o Peon colony PO/PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri district AP ------------ Advocate for : L Kurdu Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 4 Others: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 03-02-2025 Heard Shri D. Laji, learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No. 5, who has filed this petition for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 04.08.2023 passed in the connected WP(C)/355(AP)/2023. 2. Also heard Shri L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner and Ms. G. Ete, learned State counsel as well as Shri D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Department. 3. The challenge in the writ petition was the order passed by the appellant Page No.# 4/7 authority, whereby, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed. The said appeal was preferred against the order of eviction issued by the Estate Officer. The eviction was done on complaints lodged by the respondent No. 5 against illegal encroachment of the land. 4. Shri Laji, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that land was allotted by the Government to the respondent No. 5 and due to some humanitarian consideration an OBT house was allowed to be constructed in the said land for a temporary period. He has also submitted that there is a Keba decision that the writ petitioner would leave the OBT house after a period of three years. However, there was no such action of vacating the house for which the respondent No. 5 had approached the Estate Officer, leading to the passing of the eviction order preceded by notice. The eviction order was unsuccessfully challenged by the writ petitioner in an appeal, whereafter, the present petition was filed. He has submitted that on 04.08.2023, the interim order was passed ex-parte qua the respondent No. 5 and was extended from time to time. He has submitted that even, otherwise, the petition itself would not be maintainable inasmuch as the eviction notice was issued in the name of the father of the writ petitioner. However, the challenge was not made by the father of the writ petitioner but by the petitioner and at that time, the father of the petitioner was alive. 5. Shri Laji, learned counsel has submitted that the petition is itself filed by suppression of material facts and by misrepresentation and in this regard, he had relied upon the judgment of K. D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in (2008) 12 SSC 481. It is highlighted that while approaching a Court, the approach should be with clean hands and not by suppression of material facts which will disentitle a litigant from any relief. He Page No.# 5/7 has also submitted that though the interlocutory application was filed on 21.12.2023, till date, no objection has been filed by the opposite party/writ petitioner. 6. Per contra, Shri L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner has submitted that the interlocutory application itself may not be maintainable. He has submitted that the interlocutory application which was filed on 21.12.2023 did not take into account the last extension order, dated 05.12.2023, which was in operation and therefore, without a prayer made for vacating the said order, the interlocutory application in its present form would not be maintainable. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the electricity and the water bills are in the name of the opposite party/writ petitioner and therefore, the right of the opposite party/writ petitioner is writ large over the said plot of land. As regards the institution of the writ petition in the name of the petitioner, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that though the father was alive at the time of such institution, it was decided that the petitioner would take up the cause of action as he is also equally affected and he has also informed during the pendency of the writ petition, the father of the writ petitioner has passed away. 7. Ms. G. Ete, learned State Counsel has supported the case of the respondent No. 5/applicant and has informed that the State has filed affidavit- in-opposition way back in the year 2023 and has opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the eviction order by the Estate Officer and the appellate order passed by the appellate authority are in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice. 8. Shri Laji, the learned counsel for the applicant in his rejoinder has submitted that the aspects of the maintainability of the interlocutory application Page No.# 6/7 as raised by the writ petitioner is not sustainable inasmuch as, apart from mentioning the various orders passed by this Court extending the interim order, he has also mentioned about subsequent orders. 9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed on records have been carefully examined. 10. The interim order was passed on 04.08.2023 in the connected writ petition. As per the same, the impugned order of eviction, dated 24.07.2023, was not to be given effect to till the returnable date. The said order was passed admittedly ex-parte qua the respondent No. 5. The order, however, was extended from time to time. The projection made by the applicant/respondent No. 5 in support of his prayer is based on the Keba decision as per which the father of the petitioner was to leave the premises after 3 (three) years which was not done for which eviction proceeding had to be initiated. It also appears that the land is Government land which was allotted to the respondent No.5/applicant by virtue of he being a government servant. The assertion made by the writ petitioner is that construction of the said OBT house was made over the land by the petitioner on his own and by investment as the land was not feasible for human habitation. It also transpires from the materials available on records that the development of the land, according to the petitioner, was in the year 2009, when the same was occupied and at that time, the writ petitioner was a minor boy of 11 years. 11. Be that as it may, without going into that aspect of the matter, the records would reveal that the proceeding was against the father of the petitioner, who was a party to the Keba decision and the notice of eviction including the order dated 24.07.2023 is in the name of the father of the petitioner. Even the appellate order is in the name of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, when Page No.# 7/7 admittedly at the time of institution of writ petition, when the father of the petitioner was alive, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the father of the petitioner did not come before this Court to challenge the decision and instead his son had instituted the same. 12. This Court has also noticed that though this interlocutory application was filed in December, 2023, in this long period of time of more than a year, even the objection has not been filed. The order of eviction as well as the appellate order upholding the same does not, prima facie, appears to be passed in violation of any Rules or in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order passed on 04.08.2023 which has been extended from time to time. Accordingly, the same stands vacated. 14. The writ petition may be listed for hearing in the second week of March, 2025. 15. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant