Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040005822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/629/2024 Ojing Darung Age: 64 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tanam Darung Village Mirem Circle Bilat PO Bilat PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary (Land Management) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Boleng Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Page No.# 2/6 Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Boleng Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Tabit Tapak Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 3 Ors: Advocate , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 11.04.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his maternal uncle had gifted a plot of land measuring about 180 sq. mtrs. at Boleng in Siang District, purportedly on 27.12.2016. It is projected that the concerned authorities had issued a Government land allotment passbook in favour of his maternal uncle, who was in possession of the said land since last 27 years. The petitioner had applied a transfer of the said allotted land on account of gift, which was forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng to the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District vide letter dated 02.05.2017. The District Land & Revenue Settlement Officer forwarded the said proposal to the Director of Land Management vide letter dated 17.05.2023 and a letter of approval was issued by Page No.# 3/6 the Director of Land Management on 23.11.2023. 3. Pursuant to such approval, an order dated 21.06.2024 was issued by the District Land & Revenue Settlement Officer, deputing a Mandal and a Chainman to verify/demarcate the plot of land measuring 180 sq. mtrs. allotted to the petitioner and to submit a report. As per the report dated 28.07.2023, the land area of 160 sq. mtrs. was found available at Upper Colony Area, Boleng, which was without any dispute and the site was free from all encumbrance. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10.09.2024, to the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District,acknowledged to reduce the area of 160 sq. mtrs. and suggested/proposed that the shortfall of 14.5 mtrs. length x 1.5 mtrs. breadth can be acquired by turning out 20 sq. mtrs. from the adjacent vacant Government plot more than 500 sq. mtrs. The said representation was followed by another two representations dated 13.09.2024 and 27.11.2024. As there was no favorable result, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was allotted 180 sq. mtrs. land, it was the bounden duty of the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District to make up the shortfall or to evict illegal encroachers over his allotted land and to hand over a well demarcated 180 sq. mtrs. land to the petitioner. 6. The Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made in this writ petitioner. 7. The learned Government Advocate has brought to the notice of the Court that the Registration Act, 1908, have been made applicable to the State of Page No.# 4/6 Arunachal Pradesh. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner supported by Annexure-III to the writ petition that his uncle late Taki Tatin, who had gifted the land to him, had been given a land allotment passbook. However, the gift that was executed purportedly on 27.12.2016 is not a registered gift deed. Thus, it is an incorrect statement in sub-paragraph of paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the said gift deed is a registered gift deed. As the said unregistered gift deed (Annexure-IV) bears the seal and signature of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 8. Under Section 43 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000, it is provided as follows: “43. Decision as to conflict in any case.-Notwithstanding anything herein before contained an entry regarding the status of the actual possessor of a plot and the conditions on which he holds the land in the field index as finally published shall, in case of conflict with an entry in the record-of- rights, prevail and be transferred to the record-of-rights for correction of such record under certificate of such officer as may be prescribed in this behalf”. 9. From the above provision, it appears that actual possession of a possessor over a plot of land would prevail in case of conflict with an entry in the record- of-rights and would require correction of record. 10. It is surprising to note that in the so-called deed of gift dated 27.12.2016, it is nowhere mentioned that the donor had handed over possession of the gifted land to the petitioner. Rather, in paragraph 2 thereof, it is mentioned- “That the donee shall and may from time to time at all times hereafter Page No.# 5/6 peacefully and quietly entered upto, hold, occupied, possessed and enjoyed the property hereby gifted …”. Therefore, there are two possibilities. Firstly, that the petitioner, having not alleged that his land was occupied or encroached, is presumed to have taken over unilateral possession of only 160 sq. mtrs. land. The second possibility is that if he took over possession of 180 sq. mtrs. land initially, but somebody must have encroached and occupied 20 sq. mtrs. of the said land, of which the petitioner would be deemed to have notice, but which is not disclosed in this writ petition. 11. Therefore, this writ petition appears to be a shortcut process by the petitioner, rather than to approach competent Court or forum for an appropriate remedy permissible in law 12. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that if there is any shortfall in the proposed allotted land, as projected in the writ petition, a writ petition would not maintainable to direct the respondent authorities to provide possession of 180 sq. mtrs. land to the petitioner in terms of hereinbefore referred land allotment order dated 12.06.2015. If permissible in law and subject to law of limitation, the petitioner would have to approach either a Civil Court or any other appropriate authority or forum to have any part of the proposed allotted land free from encroachment by way of an eviction, in such manner as the petitioner may be if so advised. 13. The petitioner appears to be making a claim on the basis of land allotment order dated 12.06.2015. The said allotment order is not shown to be transferable. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to seek enforcement of the said allotment order. Page No.# 6/6 14. Therefore, this writ petition is found without any merit. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. We refrain from imposing cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant