Dismissed

Nasib Gao v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2020WP(C)/52/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court held that an alternative remedy under Section 12 exists for challenges to eviction orders under Section 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises Act, 2003, warranting dismissal. The petition was dismissed after conditioning suspension of the eviction order to enable filing an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction order suspended for one week; writ petition dismissed.

Nasib Gao Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC040001322020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 52/2020

¶5

1:Nasib Gao

¶6

S/o Lt. Ongin Gao, a permanent resident of Mirku village, Pasighat, PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang Dist. AP

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶9

represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt. of AP, Itanagar

¶10

2:The Director of Land Management Govt. of AP Itanagar

¶11

3:The Deputy Commissioner East Siang District Pasighat A

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Dugmar Kamduk

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 11-02-2020

¶18

Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

eviction order dated 27.01.2020 issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat should be set aside, inasmuch as, the petitioner had been occupying the said land since 2011 and even though he had applied for land allotment of the said land, the petitioner’s application for land allotment has not been decided till date.

¶21

2. On perusing the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner’s application for regularisation/allotment of the occupied land has been made on 05.02.2020, i.e., subsequent to the impugned eviction order dated 27.01.2020. The question as to whether there can be allotment of the petitioner’s occupied land is the discretion of the Government. However, the same does not have any relevance at this stage, as the application for land allotment has been made only after the eviction order dated 27.01.2020 had been issued. Thus, the only issue that is relevant at this stage is whether the eviction order dated 27.01.2020 is valid or not.

¶22

3. Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003 provides for appeal in respect of an eviction order made under Section 7. As there is an alternative remedy available, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion and entertain the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat against the impugned eviction order dated 27.01.2020, as per law.

¶23

4. In the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 shall be suspended for a period of 1(one) week from today, i.e. till 17.02.2020, to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat against the impugned order dated 27.01.2020.

¶24

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Nasib Gao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasib Gao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tangir Tamut Vs Govind Jaswal

Sonam Gyatso Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Samsul Haque Choudhury Vs Sweety Zohmanglaihi and Anr.

K Sasri Rajarshi Bhattacharjee Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Shri Praveen Tayang Vs the Union of India

M/S Kakum Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.