Allowed

Jumken Kamdak and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2023WP(C)/135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court addressed a notice restricting activities on disputed land. Finding a dispute regarding ownership between petitioners and a respondent, the Court disposed of the petition and quashed the notice for not indicating the legal provisions under which it was issued.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 15.03.2022 was set aside and quashed for not indicating any provision of law under which it was passed.

Jumken Kamdak and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040003862022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 135/2022

¶5

1:Jumken Kamdak and 2 Ors. S/o Lt. Tojum Kamdak, R/o Everest Kamdak, PO/PS Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Ego Kamdak S/o Lt. Yomi Kamdak R/o Everest Kamdak PO/PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Doba Taba S/o Lt. Mido Taba. R/o Everest Kamdak PO/PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors.

¶10

Represented by the Secretary, General Administration, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar

¶11

2:The Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Additional District Magistrate

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Tomo Basar S/o Lt. Goto Basar R/o Village Nyigam PO/PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶17

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 14-03-2023

¶20

Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶21

None appears for the respondent no. 4, despite being duly served, as indicated in the Office note, dated 10.05.2022.

¶22

This writ petition is directed against the notice, dated 15.03.2022, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. LRD/JDL-15/2021-22/2434, whereby, people living in the adjacent area specially village of KamdakTaba has been directed not to carry out any illegal wood cutting, Jhum cultivation, agricultural activities within the private land of the respondent no. 4.

¶23

The impugned notice dated 15.03.2022, was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Leparada District,

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Basar, on a complaint lodged by the respondent no. 4, stating that the people living in the adjacent village, namely, KamdakTabawere illegally carrying out activities like Jhum cultivation by felling trees and agricultural activities at his land, namely, “Chante and Rachep” area without his permission.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land called “Chante and Rachep” belongs to them.

¶27

The respondent nos. 2 & 3 have filed counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been contended that the impugned notice, dated 15.03.2023 was issued bythe Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Leparada District, on good faith in order to prevent untoward incident andmaintain law and order in the area.

¶28

After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on the record, it appears that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of land in “Chante and Rachep” between the petitioners and the respondent no. 4.

¶29

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to resolve the dispute regarding the ownership of land called “Chante and Rachep”, if any, by approaching the proper forum for resolving such a dispute.

¶30

Consequently, the impugned notice, dated 15.03.2022, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, vide No. LRD/JDL-15/2021-22/2434, is hereby set aside and quashed, on the ground that the impugned notice does not indicate any provision of law under which it has been passed. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, or, for that matter, the Deputy Commissioner, however, shall be within their competence to pass appropriate order(s), in accordance with law,

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

insofar as maintenance of law and order in the area is concerned.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed with the above direction and observation.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Jumken Kamdak and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jumken Kamdak and 2 Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kya Fangcha Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Ariya Meto and 29 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

M/s Kgb Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Rending Tayo Beki Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Atin Padung Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

The Union of India and and 3 Ors. Vs Tashi Pujen and 4 Ors.