Disposed

Kento Eshi (Ori) v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022Review Pet./7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition clarified that the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 did not deprive the Deputy Commissioner of powers under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to determine the petitioner's claim regarding private land inclusion in the acquisition schedule.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to determine the petitioner's claim regarding private land inclusion in the acquisition schedule.

Kento Eshi (Ori) Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040005822022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review Pet. 7/2022

¶5

1:Kento Eshi (Ori)

¶6

S/o Lt. Poken Eshi (Ori), Siyom Colony, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, District West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, Pin 791001. Mob. No. 8119999173

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP AND 6 Ors.

¶9

Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of A.P, Itanagar

¶10

2:The Secretary Land Management Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶11

3:The Deputy Commissioner Aalo District West Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

4:The Commanding Officer 4 JAK LI Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶13

5:The DL and RSO Aalo under Land Management Department West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

6:The Defense Estate Officer (DEO) Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Gumsen Lollen S/o Lt. Tagum Lollen Panya Village PO and PS Aalo District West Siang Arunachal Pradesh Secretary of the PDBRATBC (Panya Dego Bogdo Rigo Along Town Boundary Committee) representing PDBRATBC

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶18

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 17-08-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5, being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh; Deputy Commissioner, Aalo and DL&RSO under the Land Management Department. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, being the authorities under the Land Management Department and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 Shri GumsenLollen. Considering the nature of the grievance raised and the order proposed to be passed, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶22

The review petitioner KentoEshi (Ori) instituted WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022, inter alia on the grievance that in the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’), in the schedule thereof, a part of a plot of land of which he was an owner had also been included. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No. 439(AP)/2021 was instituted by the review petitioner and in the said writ petition, the present respondent No. 7 Shri GumsenLollen had also got himself impleaded by filing an interlocutory application. WP(C) No. 439(AP)/2021 was given a final consideration by the order dated 25.01.2022, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order by affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶25

Consequent thereof, an order dated 17.03.2022 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, the review petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022. In course of the hearing of WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022, it was taken note that the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had misdirected himself in passing the order dated 17.03.2022 and accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order, if necessary by conducting a de-novo determination and in doing so, the Deputy Commissioner to also decide upon the claim of the review petitioner that a part of his private land had also been included in the schedule land for the acquisition. As the respondent No. 7 Shri GumsenLollen had also got himself impleaded in the earlier writ petition, it was further provided that while deciding the matter, the respondent No. 7 Shri GumsenLollen also be given an opportunity of hearing along with the review petitioner. The meaning and purport of the earlier order dated 04.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022 was that the Deputy Commissioner to give a hearing and determine the claim of the review petitioner that his private land is also included in the acquired land and if yes, to take

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

follow up action by following the due procedure of law for the benefit of the petitioner. In doing so, the claim of the respondent No. 7 be also given a consideration while the matter was before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, for doing the needful.

¶28

In respect of the order dated 04.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022, a confusion had arisen in the mind of the review petitioner as to whether the powers of the Deputy Commissioner had been taken away as per the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021. The confusion had arisen inasmuch as, the Arunachal Civil Courts Act, 2021 takes away certain powers of the Deputy Commissioner which he had earlier exercised being a Civil Court prior to the separation of judiciary in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The aforesaid confusion is clarified to the extent that the Deputy Commissioners retain their original powers and authorities as Deputy Commissioners which they had earlier exercised. But the additional powers that they had exercised as a Civil Court prior to the separation of the judiciary have now been taken over by the Civil Courts as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021. Therefore, it has be understood that even after coming into effect of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, the original powers of the Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Commissioners still remain.

¶29

In the instant case, the dispute is regarding acquisition of a plot of land wherein there is a claim of the review petitioner that a part of his private land had also been included in the schedule of the acquired land. The same aspect was required to have been decided by the Deputy Commissioner being the District Collector who is an authority under the Act of 2013, for such determination. Accordingly, as the power of the Deputy Commissioner to decide a matter in respect of acquisition of land under the Act of 2013 is an exercise of

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

power as a Deputy Commissioner and not as a Civil Court, therefore the said power still remains.

¶32

The Deputy Commissioner, Aalo to comply with the order dated 04.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022, in the manner it was provided therein without being influenced by any such confusion as indicated above. If the review petitioner had made any application before the Deputy Commissioner regarding the aforesaid aspect, such application may be ignored and the Deputy Commissioner to proceed ahead with the matter. On the aforesaid aspect, if there is any further litigation between the parties, the same also be ignored in view of the clarification provided herein above and the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in the manner as required by the order dated 04.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 131(AP)/2022.

¶33

With the aforesaid clarification, the review petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Kento Eshi (Ori) v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kento Eshi (Ori) v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

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

Vijay Kumar Chhetry Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Techi Deram Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Biman Phukan Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Igo Riba Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Sheel Kapar Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.