Remanded

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

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition concerning land acquisition under LARR Act 2013, observed the Deputy Commissioner failed to adjudicate ownership disputes and hearing rights of conflicting claimants. The Court remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned determination of ownership within one month, superseding the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Remand of the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration, determination of ownership, and passing of a reasoned order within one month.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040003612022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 131/2022

¶5

1:Kento Eshi (Ori) S/o Lt. Poken Eshi (Ori),

¶6

Resident of Keno Ori Market, Siyom Colony, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, District West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, PIN 791001. Mobile 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.# 2/6

¶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

¶19

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 04-04-2022

¶22

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 being the Chief Secretary and the authorities in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

for respondent Nos. 4 & 6 being the authorities under the Defence State, office of the Union of India.

¶26

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we deem it appropriate notice not required to be issued to the respondent No. 7.

¶27

The writ petitioner clams to be owner of a plot of land measuring around 60,000/- Sq. Mtrs., located at Hissam village, Aalo in the West Siang District. The said land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of the defence, for which, the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been issued.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the schedule of the land provided in the said notification, the name of the petitioner is not included, although, a part of his land is also included in the land sought to be acquired.

¶29

Being aggrieved, WP (C) 439 (AP) 2021 was instituted, which was given a final consideration by the order, dated 25.01.2022. In the said writ petition, the respondent No. 7 Sri Gumsen Lollen had filed an application for impleading himself as respondent No. 7, which was allowed by this Court, as per the order passed in I.A. (C) 9 (AP) 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of requiring the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶30

In Paragragh-10 of the said order, it was provided that the

¶31

Page No.# 4/6

¶32

respondent No. 7 Sri Gumsen Lollen being the Secretary of PDBRATBE was also heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo in the earlier proceeding and, therefore, he also be given an opportunity to appear before the Deputy Commissioner in the hearing to be conducted.

¶33

We are unable to understand as to why the respondent No. 7 being the Secretary of PDBRATBE is to be given a hearing in the matter where the petitioner claims his private land has been included in the acquisition but his name is not included in the list of beneficiaries. A Secretary of an organization cannot be the owner of any land unless it is the case of the respondent No. 7 Sri Gumsen Lollen that it is he who is the owner of the land over which the petitioner is making a claim.

¶34

Be that, as it may, the Deputy Commissioner in response thereof had passed the order dated 17.03.2022. In the 5^th paragraph of the said order, it is provided that the petitioner had submitted that he is not demanding compensation for his land to be acquired by the Army but he is confined with the demarcation of land boundary to be clear between the Army occupied area and the private land of the petitioner. We do not understand the meaning and purport of the said submission being recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. If it is the claim of the writ petitioner that his land is also included in the acquisition but his name is not included in the list of beneficiaries, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to give a hearing to the petitioner and determining as to whether the petitioner is the owner of any portion of the land that is acquired. If the result thereof is in affirmative, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to either include the name

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

of the petitioner in the list of beneficiaries for the compensation or else it is for the Deputy Commissioner to exclude the land of the petitioner from the acquisition.

¶37

On the other hand, if the respondent No. 7 is of the view that it is he who is the owner, it is again for the Deputy Commissioner to give a hearing and determine on the ownership of the respondent No. 7. No other approach would be acceptable on the part of the Deputy Commissioner other than to determine the legal rights of the writ petitioner and for that if he has do the needful as indicated above and on the other hand, if the respondent No. 7 is the owner, the Deputy Commissioner may determine in the appropriate manner. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, for a fresh consideration as indicated above. In the de novo determination, the Deputy Commissioner shall determine; firstly, whether the claim of the writ petitioner that he is the owner is correct or not and for the purpose, the Deputy Commissioner shall provide the petitioner with every opportunity to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, if the respondent No. 7 who is also required to be heard makes a claim that it is he who is the owner, the Deputy Commissioner may also determine the same and depending on the determination, appropriate orders be passed. In such determination, if the conclusion is that the petitioner is the owner of the land and a portion of land is included in the acquired land, his name be either included in the list of beneficiaries by doing the necessary modification or his land may be returned back if it is not required for acquisition. Requirement of passing the reasoned order be done within a

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Any such order to be passed shall supersede and hold precedence over the earlier order, dated 17.03.2022. Till the determination is done by the Deputy Commissioner, the earlier order, dated 17.03.2022 shall not be given effect.

¶40

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

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

Majim Jaboju Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Tada @ Lamda Dong Vs the State of Ap

Yatung Thama Vs the State of Ap

Pisa Tabin and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

M/s Ragia Ku Enterprise Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Tacha Chunga Vs the State of Ap