Remanded

Ngilyang Tam v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2021Crl.Rev.P./3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. issued without prior notice to remove structures. The High Court set aside the order for violation of natural justice and directed the authority to issue a notice with at least 7 days to show cause.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2021; direct the authority to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause within at least 7 days.

Ngilyang Tam Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040002062021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 3/2021

¶5

1:Ngilyang Tam

¶6

S/O NGILYANG TARANG, RESIDENT OF CHIMPU, ITANAGAR, PO/PS ITANAGAR, DIST.PAPUM PARE, AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP

¶9

THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶10

2:The Executive Engineer Naharlagun Highway Division Nirjuli Govt. of Arunachal Prades

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Duyu Laji

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 02-03-2021

¶17

Considering the subject matter of dispute and the issue involved in this case, the same is being disposed of today at the admission stage.

¶18

The present application has been filed under Section 397/438 of the Cr.P.C. against an order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

Additional District Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Complex in Case No. CEO/ICC/DAD-1966/2020/6631-37 (EE Nlg Highway Div-Vrs-Techi Kako & 107 Ors), under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., 1973.

¶21

By the aforesaid impugned order the petitioner has been directed to remove the structures within the aforesaid plot of land within 10 days failing which the same shall be removed by the authorities on the risk and cost of the petitioner. The order appears to have been passed under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. The primary ground urged in this petition is not giving of adequate opportunity to show cause before issuing the impugned order dated 05.02.2021.

¶22

Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has produced the records of the case pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2021. The Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the records do not indicate that any notice was issued prior to the impugned order dated 05.02.2021.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, without even touching into merit of the dispute, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed of the action of the respondent authority. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Complex in Case No. CEO/ICC/DAD-1966/2020/6631-37 (EE Nlg Highway Div-Vrs-Techi Kako & 107 Ors), under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is hereby set aside. The authority is however at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the construction made by him is illegal.

¶24

It is made clear that the petitioner should be allotted at least 7 days time to submit such show cause reply of the date of the receipt of the same. Depending upon the reply the authority would be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law by communicating the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

same to the petitioner.

¶27

At this stage, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of AP submits that the impugned order is common to 107 persons. Therefore, it is made clear that the present interference is with regard to the case of the petitioner only on the facts and circumstances thereof.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Ngilyang Tam v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ngilyang Tam 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

Kanailal Mukherjee Vs Jotam Toko Takam and Anr.

Geetimoni Hazarika Vs the State of Ap

Papun Tagio Vs the State of Ap

Phassang Tagung Vs the State of Ap

Tage Haniya and 10 Ors. Vs Jumsor Padu and 4 Ors.

Phassang Tayam Vs the State of Ap