Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10042 (GAU)

Techi Menia, W/o Shri T. M. Tara v. State Of AP

2026-02-05

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

body2026
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The approach to this writ court under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following prayer: i) A writ of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction; setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar. ii) A writ of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction; setting aside and quashed the impugned vide LPC No.DC/CC/LPC-18/08 (pt) dated 05.10.2015 of the respondent No.3 for the land measuring 216 sq.mtrs situated at Model village, Naharlagun. iii) A direction to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to hear the matter afresh on the basis of subsequent development of gift deed dated 09.10.2015 executed between respondent No.3. iv) A direction to the respondent No.2 to restore/revive the LPC No.DC/CC/LPC- 18/08 dated 21.07.2008 of the petitioner the land measuring for sq.mtrs situated Naharlagun. at 216 Model village, Naharlagun. -And- v) And/or pass such order/orders or directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring 216 square meters, in respect of which the necessary Land Possession Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “LPC”) was issued in her favour. Sometime in the year 2014, the petitioner was facing financial difficulties, and in that situation, respondent no. 3 offered to liquidate all the liabilities of the petitioner, in lieu of which the land was to be gifted to him. Accordingly, an agreement was signed. However, respondent no. 3 did not discharge the liabilities, for which the petitioner lodged a complaint seeking revocation of the gift deed. The Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, accordingly directed the EAC, Naharlagun, to take necessary steps, pursuant to which the EAC, Naharlagun directed that a Keba be conducted to look into the matter. It has been contended that on three occasions the Keba was convened. On the first occasion, respondent no. 3 was absent and on the second occasion both the parties were present, however, the witnesses did not appear. It is the case of the petitioner that on the second occasion, respondent no. 3 conceded that he could not discharge his obligation. Be that as it may, the Keba was convened on the third occasion when respondent no. 3 was absent. It is the case of the petitioner that on the second occasion, respondent no. 3 conceded that he could not discharge his obligation. Be that as it may, the Keba was convened on the third occasion when respondent no. 3 was absent. However, based on the concession made by respondent no. 3 on the second occasion, the Keba took a decision that the land would have to be reverted back to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the LPC which respondent no. 3 had in the meantime obtained. The aforesaid decision of cancellation of the LPC was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition instituted by respondent no. 3, being WP(C) No. 132 of 2018. The primary ground of challenge was violation of the principles of natural justice as respondent no. 3 was not given a proper opportunity to present his case. 3. This Court, vide order dated 08.04.2022, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. However, this Court made an observation that the decision of the Keba was not interfered with and rather, the same was affirmed. On the basis of such remarks, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 30.06.2022, whereby the LPC in the name of respondent no. 3 was restored. It was observed in the impugned order that the present petitioner could not produce any documents. Liberty was, however, granted to the parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the present challenge. 4. I have heard Shri D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, along with Mr. Y. Riram, learned State counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. Shri D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that no documents could be furnished by the petitioner is palpably incorrect, inasmuch as such an observation cannot be conceived in a contentious matter of this nature. He drew the attention of this Court to a communication dated 20.11.2015 issued by the brother of respondent no. 3, who was the Circle Officer. In the said letter, it was categorically stated that the brother, who was a guarantor, would no longer stand as guarantor as respondent no. He drew the attention of this Court to a communication dated 20.11.2015 issued by the brother of respondent no. 3, who was the Circle Officer. In the said letter, it was categorically stated that the brother, who was a guarantor, would no longer stand as guarantor as respondent no. 3 had failed to discharge his obligation as per the agreement. 6. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 is liable to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, Shri Y. Riram, learned State counsel, submitted that this Court, vide order dated 08.04.2022, remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, who considered the matter and passed the impugned order in accordance with law. 8. Shri X. Gyati, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4, has strenuously opposed the writ petition. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by his clients and the rejoinder thereof by the petitioner, he submitted that pursuant to the observations made in the impugned order dated 30.06.2022, the petitioner had, in fact, approached the Civil Court, which was subsequently withdrawn on the ground of submitting more documents and thereafter the present writ petition was filed. He also drew the attention of this Court to the application filed by the petitioner before the competent Sub-Registrar for cancellation of the gift deed, which is pending and the same has been enclosed with the affidavit- in-reply filed by him. He further submitted that disputed questions of fact are involved which may not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner, if aggrieved, may approach the competent Civil Court. 9. The rival contentions have been duly considered, and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 10. Before going to the issue requiring adjudication with regard to the legality or otherwise of the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it would be necessary to take into consideration certain important background facts, including the observations made by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No. 132 of 2018. 11. As stated above, the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 132 of 2018, was instituted by the present respondent no. 3 in respect of the cancellation of his LPC pursuant to the Keba decision dated 10.11.2015. 11. As stated above, the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 132 of 2018, was instituted by the present respondent no. 3 in respect of the cancellation of his LPC pursuant to the Keba decision dated 10.11.2015. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2022, interfered with such cancellation, which appears to have been only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. However, this Court made an important observation that the decision of the Keba was not interfered with and rather, the same was affirmed. For ready reference, the observations made in paragraph 16 of the judgment dated 08.04.2022 are extracted hereinbelow: “16. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, dated 30.09.2016, vide No. DC/LM/LPC18/08(Pt), stands set aside and quashed, as the same was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and by which, the principle of natural justice stands violated. It is provided that the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, will hear the matter of cancellation afresh, by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, thereafter, to take a fresh decision upon the same. The above exercise has to be carried out within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment & order. The petitioner is directed to obtain a certified copy of this judgment & order and to place the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar. However, I find that the impugned Keba decisions require no interference of this court, and accordingly, the same stands affirmed.” 12. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid observations were not put to further challenge and have attained finality. Be that as it may, upon remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2022, the primary ground being that the present petitioner, who was the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, had failed to produce any supporting documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, the exercise to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, qua the aspect of cancellation of the LPC of respondent no. 3, was limited only to affording the said respondent no. 3 an opportunity of hearing. In the considered opinion of this Court, the exercise to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, qua the aspect of cancellation of the LPC of respondent no. 3, was limited only to affording the said respondent no. 3 an opportunity of hearing. The remand was admittedly in terms of the order of this Court dated 08.04.2022, wherein there is a categorical finding affirming the decision of the Keba. The Keba, in no uncertain terms, had arrived at the following conclusions: “After hearing parties and witnesses, it is amply clear that the land belongs to Smti Techi Menia and any claim of ownership of the same land either by Mr. Lolang Bagang or Kumar Tajo cannot be entertained. It has been observed that Mr. Lolang Bagang has tried to cheat Smti Techi Menia in furtherance of his ill intention, he got an agreement executed by Techi Menia in his favour and without performing his part of the agreement he again got the gift deed singed. But the statements of the witnesses revealed that ill intention of Lolang Bagang. We therefore, decide the matter in favour of Techi Menia and strongly recommends for restoring the land to Smti Techi Menia.” 13. In view of the aforesaid conclusions having been affirmed by this Court, there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion as reflected in the impugned order. The subsequent action of the petitioner in approaching the Civil Court and withdrawing the same will not have any impact on the challenge presently instituted in this writ petition with regard to the impugned order dated 30.06.2022. This Court is of the opinion that, in view of the affirmation of the findings of the Keba dated 10.11.2015 by this Court in its judgment and order dated 08.04.2022, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, interfered with. 14. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. 15. No order as to cost(s).