Disposed

Joseph Tate v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC22 Jun 2022WP(C)/218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an eviction order under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant Act, 2003, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of an appeal preferred by the petitioner within specified timelines and stayed the eviction order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner to consider and dispose of the pending appeal within two weeks; stay of the impugned eviction order until such disposal.

Joseph Tate Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040007282022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 218/2022

¶5

1:Joseph Tate S/o Shri Takar Tate, R/o DST Colony, Pasighat PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Mob. No 9862037504

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors.

¶8

Represented by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶9

2:The Director (Land Management) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶10

3:The Deputy Commissioner East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The EAC cum Estate Officer East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

22.06.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Department, representing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State, representing respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶19

This writ petition has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned eviction order, dated 23.05.2022, passed by the respondent No. 4, EAC-cumEstate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh vide memo No. ESD/EC-128/S.Forestry/2022/303-306, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the illegal OBT structure constructed by him in the Social Forestry area, opposite of Town club, Pasighat on or before 23.06.2022. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat to consider the applications dated 07.05.2013 and 07.09.2017 which are applications submitted by the petitioner for allotment of land to the petitioner; and, also to dispose of the appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, dated 14.06.2022, under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003, against the impugned eviction order, dated 23.05.2022, issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶20

The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows:

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

Pursuant to a notice dated 11.05.2022, issued to the petitioner by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh vide memo No. ESD/EC-131/S.Forestry/2022/223-229, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be evicted for having illegally occupied or encroached upon a portion of Government land by constructing OBT hut in Social Forestry region, opposite of Town club, Pasighat, the order of eviction dated 23.05.2022 was issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh directing the petitioner to remove the illegal OBT structure constructed by him in the Social Forestry area, opposite of Town club on or before 23.06.2022 as according to the order passed by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner could not establish that the land under his occupation is his private land and not a Government land or “Public Premise” within the meaning of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003. Though the order of eviction under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 was issued to the petitioner by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat on 23.05.2022, it appears that an appeal under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of eviction dated 23.05.2022, issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat only on 14.06.2022 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat. Though the appeal under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 was filed by the petitioner on 14.06.2022, as the same was not considered and disposed of by the

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order mentioned above as well as seeking a direction as indicated herein above.

¶25

When this matter was heard by this Court on 20.06.2022, the learned State counsel was given time to obtain instruction in the matter. Pursuant thereto, Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has produced before this Court the instruction received from the respondents that the petitioner indeed had filed an appeal dated 14.06.2022 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 against the order of eviction, dated 23.05.2022, issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat.

¶26

Since the appeal, dated 14.06.2022, preferred under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat by the petitioner against the order of eviction, dated 23.05.2022, issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat has been confirmed by the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate on an instruction received from the respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at the stage of motion hearing itself by directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of the appeal, dated 14.06.2022, preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 against the order of eviction, dated 23.05.2022, issued by the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which shall be submitted by the petitioner within a period of 1 (one) week from today. It is

¶27

Page No.# 5/5

¶28

ordered accordingly.

¶29

Till the appeal, dated 14.06.2022, preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 2003 is disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat in accordance with law, the impugned eviction order, dated 23.05.2022, issued by

¶30

the EAC-cum-Estate Officer, Pasighat, vide memo No. ESD/EC128/S.Forestry/2022/303-306, shall not be given effect to.

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Joseph Tate v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Tate v. the State of Ap and 3 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

Jummo Geiyi Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Niba Hospital Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Nguntim Changmi Vs Phosun Khimhun

Mumsu Borang Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Yasum Siram Taloh Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Evening Aje Litin Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.