Page No.# 1/10 GAHC040001442022 2026:GAU-AP:991 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/55/2022 Nang Gao S/o Lt. Durga Gao, a permanent resident of Village Sika Bamin, PO and PS Sille Oyan, District East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 7 Ors. Represented by the Commissioner/Secretary (Land Managemen), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Ruksin-cum-chairman Enquiry Committee Report dated 12.10.2021 4:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer(DLRSO) Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Pasighat Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/10 5:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Govt. of AP Itanagar 6:The District Veterinary Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Govt. of AP Pasighat 7:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Health and Family Welfare Department Govt. of AP Itanagar 8:The District Medical Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Govt. of AP Pasighat Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Sr. Adv, D Loyi,Gamken Bam,Terji Kamchi,Riya Sarkar,Y Mugli,Kirmani Lollen Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Ninnong Ratan,Taba Tagum,SC(Health) :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Page No.# 3/10 Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the Enquiry Report dated 12.10.2021 and the consequential order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, whereby the two Land Possession Certificates (LPCs) issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 1380 sq. metres and 1507.5 sq. metres have been cancelled. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had acquired possession of two plots of land situated near the Veterinary Compound and the Primary Health Centre, Sille-Oyan, from Satish Pao and Mojit Pao by way of gift and sale. In the year 2017, the petitioner applied before the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, for issuance of LPCs in respect of the said plots. The applications were processed by the concerned authorities and field inspection was undertaken on 02.11.2017. Thereafter, a public notice dated 05.01.2018 was issued inviting objections from the general public in respect of issuance of LPCs in favour of the petitioner. Upon expiry of the period prescribed for filing objections, the petitioner deposited the requisite fees and, thereafter, two LPCs dated 22.03.2018 were issued in his favour, one in respect Page No.# 4/10 of land measuring 1380 sq. metres and the other in respect of land measuring 1507.5 sq. metres. The petitioner states that the LPCs were issued after completion of the prescribed procedure and after survey of the lands, the sketch maps were drawn by the concerned Mandal, checked by the concerned authority, signed by the DLRSO and approved by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The petitioner thereafter constructed bamboo fencing and barbed wire around the land. A dispute subsequently arose when the Officer-in-Charge, Oyan Sille Police Station, stopped the work on the basis of a complaint made by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sille, alleging encroachment over departmental land. The Circle Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Sille-Oyan, passed an order dated 06.05.2019 directing maintenance of status quo till demarcation of the land, followed by an order dated 08.05.2019 directing removal of the bamboo fencing. The petitioner challenged the said action before this Court in WP(C) No. 144(AP)/2019. By order dated 13.05.2019, this Court directed the State respondents to demarcate the land between the petitioner and the Government. Thereafter, in the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner, being Cont. Cas. (C) No. 30/2020, the respondents placed on record a demarcation report dated 02.12.2020 stating that the order dated 13.05.2019 had been complied with. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 03.12.2020, the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, constituted an Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ruksin, to examine the feasibility of cancellation of the LPCs and determination of ownership of the land covered by the LPCs. The Committee consisted, inter alia, of the Circle Officer, Sille-Oyan, the District Medical Officer, the District Veterinary Officer, the DLRSO, the Village Page No.# 5/10 Secretary of Oyan and a Government empanelled Advocate. The petitioner has stated that the questionnaire issued to Satish Pao, Mojit Pao and Muhim Pait, HGB, Oyan Village, was answered on 17.08.2021 in support of his claim. 6. The Enquiry Committee thereafter submitted its report dated 12.10.2021 recommending cancellation of the two LPCs. The petitioner has challenged the said report, inter alia, on the ground that the Committee recorded findings regarding procedural lapses in the issuance of the LPCs and that the land was not in the physical possession of the actual landowners but was in the possession of the PHC/Medical Department and Veterinary Department. It is further stated that the Medical Department, Veterinary Department and Sille- Oyan Banggo, who were stated to be aggrieved or complainant parties, were also represented in the Enquiry Committee. The petitioner has further referred to the participation of Shri Nalo Tasing, General Secretary of Sille-Oyan Banggo, alleging that he had earlier lodged a complaint dated 17.03.2017 before the Deputy Commissioner and was thereafter associated with the Enquiry Committee. On these grounds, the petitioner has questioned the fairness of the enquiry and the recommendation made therein. 7. Acting upon the Enquiry Report, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 cancelling the two LPCs. The petitioner has specifically stated that the cancellation was effected without issuing any notice to him or affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further pleaded that, being aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.01.2022 to the Deputy Commissioner stating, inter alia, that the LPCs had been issued by the District Administration after following due process of law and requesting revocation of the cancellation order. The said representation, Page No.# 6/10 however, has not been responded to. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of the LPCs. It is contended that the Enquiry Report dated 12.10.2021 contained findings adverse to the petitioner and that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to meet those findings before the LPCs issued in his favour were cancelled. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the cancellation was thus effected in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner had specifically questioned the constitution of the Enquiry Committee on the ground that persons connected with the departments claiming the land, as well as persons stated to be complainants or interested parties, were associated with the enquiry. Particular reference is made to the participation of Shri Nalo Tasing, who had earlier lodged a complaint in relation to the land and thereafter participated in the enquiry. It is contended that a person who had himself raised a grievance could not thereafter participate in an enquiry concerning the same subject matter and recommend cancellation of the petitioner's LPCs. 10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 20.01.2022 questioning the cancellation of the LPCs and requesting revocation of the impugned order, but the said representation has not been considered. It is submitted that the petitioner had thus been denied an opportunity to place his case before the authority even after the cancellation order was passed. Page No.# 7/10 11. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the two plots of land in question are owned and possessed by the Veterinary and Medical Departments and that Satish Pao and Mojit Pao, from whom the petitioner claims to have acquired the land, never owned or possessed the said land and had no right, title or interest over the same. It is contended that, therefore, there was no question of the said persons having any right to gift or sell the land in favour of the petitioner. 12. Learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that the Enquiry Committee examined Satish Pao and Mojit Pao, the Gaon Burahs of Oyan Village, the concerned Mandals, the concerned SK, the Stockman in-charge of the Veterinary Office, Sille, and the concerned officials of the DLRSO. It is submitted that the Committee found gross irregularities in the issuance of the LPCs and that the alleged landowners could neither establish that the land was private land belonging to their ancestors nor establish their physical possession over the same. 13. Learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that the Enquiry Committee found that a Type-II Government quarter was in existence at the time when the LPCs were issued and that, subsequently, after obtaining the LPCs, the petitioner had demolished the said Government structures. It is submitted that, in view of the irregularities and illegalities found by the Enquiry Committee, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the two LPCs on the basis of the report dated 12.10.2021. 14. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the findings of the Enquiry Committee, the Deputy Commissioner considered that no hearing was required Page No.# 8/10 to be afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of the LPCs. It is further submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and law relating to the title and possession of the land and that such questions ought to be adjudicated by an appropriate court. Learned Senior Government Advocate accordingly submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 16. The materials on record show that the two LPCs were issued in favour of the petitioner on 22.03.2018 after completion of the process undertaken by the authorities. Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the ownership and possession of the land, leading to the enquiry constituted by the Deputy Commissioner on 03.12.2020. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report dated 12.10.2021 recommending cancellation of the LPCs on the basis of findings adverse to the petitioner. 17. The respondents have relied upon the findings of the Enquiry Committee concerning the ownership and possession of the land and the circumstances in which the LPCs were issued. The petitioner, on the other hand, has questioned those findings as well as the constitution of the Committee. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that these are disputed matters which this Court does not consider it necessary to adjudicate in the present proceedings. 18. What is, however, clear from the record is that before passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2021, the petitioner was neither issued any notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing in respect of the findings recorded in the Page No.# 9/10 Enquiry Report. The affidavit-in-opposition also states that the Deputy Commissioner felt that no hearing was required from the petitioner. The two LPCs having already been issued in favour of the petitioner, and their cancellation having been founded upon findings adverse to him, an opportunity to respond to those findings was required to be afforded before taking the final decision. 19. The fact that the Enquiry Committee had examined various persons and materials cannot, by itself, substitute the opportunity of hearing required to be afforded to the petitioner before the competent authority acted upon the adverse findings. The petitioner was entitled to place his response and relevant materials before the authority before the LPCs issued in his favour were cancelled. 20. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and to place his response to the Enquiry Report dated 12.10.2021 and the materials relied upon for cancellation of the LPCs. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 21. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties or on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee. All such matters are left open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law. 22. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms above. There shall be no Page No.# 10/10 order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant