Allowed

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC29 Oct 2025WP(C)/410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of government land and building gifted and purchased from a previous allottee. Court held Deputy Commissioner must consider the transfer application and directed compliance within three months, allowing private respondents a separate remedy for payment enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to consider the petitioners' application for transfer of the land and building within 3 months.

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC040011792021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/410/2021

¶5

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. Son of Shri Tamo Ruyi,

¶6

Permanent resident of Village Boraropuk, PO and PS Dumporijo, Upper Subansiri Distt. (A.P), presently, residing at E sector Itanagar, PO and PS, Itanagar District, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, Mobile No. 9862423208

¶7

2: Yapi Ruyi Age: Occupation : W/o Late Matu Ruyi Resident of Village Borarupok PO and PS Dumporijo Upper Subansiri Distt. (A.P)

¶8

3: Mopi Ruyi Age: Occupation : S/o Late Tamo Ruyi Resident of Village Boraropuk PO and PS Dumporijo Upper Subansiri Distt. (A.P

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P

¶11

2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex Itanagar Papum Pare District (A.P)

¶12

Page No.# 2/7

¶13

3:The District Land and Revenue Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex DC Office Itanagar Papum Pare District (A.P) 4:Takar Ruyi Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Tajar Ruyi Permanent resident of Village Bora Rupok PO and PS Dumporijo District Upper Subansiri Presently residing at PNT Colony Daporijo PO and PS Daporijo District Upper Subansiri Arunachal Pradesh 5:Jardo Ruyi Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Tajar Ruyi Permanent Resident of Village Bora Rupok PO and PS Dumporijo District Upper Subansiri Presently residing at Damsite Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun District Papum Pare Arunachal Prades

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Deka, Chorpok Modi,M Tunar,K Gara,Maji Dui,Gyati Nehal,A Saring,N Tania

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Karyom Dabi,Rimo Riba,Tshering Yangzom Bhutia,D Riba,Mukbom Pertin

¶16

Page No.# 3/7

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 30.10.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Riba, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶21

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar and DL&RSO, Capital Complex, Itanagar to complete the process of transfer of the land with building measuring 88 Sqm located at E-Sector, Itanagar.

¶22

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the land measuring 88 Sqm and the building standing on the said land at E-Sector, Itanagar has been gifted by one Shri Likha Hali by way of gift deed. The land was initially allotted to the said Likha Hali in the year 2012. The petitioners claim that although gift deed does not mention the building, they had purchased the land and the building standing on it from the said Likha Hali.

¶23

4. On such sale and the gift deed, the petitioners have applied for transfer of the ownership of the said land before the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex Itanagar. However, the same has been kept pending since 08.07.2019. It is the simple case of the petitioners that since the law permits the transfer of the Government land allotted on lease to a transferee, non-consideration for transfer of the land gifted to the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal which deprives the petitioners of their right to property.

¶24

5. Ms. G. Ete, learned Senior Additional Government Advocate submits that it

¶25

Page No.# 4/7

¶26

appears that initially due to the order dated 21.11.2019, passed by the Circle Officer, Maro, whereby it was directed that no immovable property shall be diverted and converted bought out of the compensation amount, particularly the Yes Bank building, until the time the dispute regarding the title and ownership of the compensated land between the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. No. 4 and 5, is decided by the village authority or the Court of law, the matter could not be processed. She submits that since the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents with regard to right and ownership of the compensated land has been decided by the village authority and the Circle Officer, Maro on 23.01.2020, there may not be any impediment for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to transfer of the land and property in the name of the petitioners inasmuch as the law permits that the land allotted may be transfer to a transferee with certain conditions attached thereto.

¶27

6. Mr. R. Riba, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, submits that despite the resolution of the dispute by the village authority which clearly states that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the land compensated for, and that the compensation has been received by the petitioners and out of the said compensation amount, the land in question including the building has been purchased by the petitioners, the petitioners are incumbent upon to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in terms of the decision of the village authority, as approved by the Circle Officer of Maro. Since the petitioners has failed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in terms of the decision of the village authority, and the land and building have been purchased out of the compensation amount, same cannot be transferred in the name of the

¶28

Page No.# 5/7

¶29

petitioners. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners may be directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which has been received by the petitioners as compensation for the land of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶30

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the materials available on record.

¶31

8. The petitioners appears to have purchased the land measuring 88 Sqm along with the building from one Shri Likha Hali located at E-Sector Itanagar. On such purchase, the actual allotee of the Government land has made a gift deed on 08.07.2019, in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioner No. 1. On the basis of the gift deed, the petitioner No. 1 appears to have applied for transfer before the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar which is admittedly pending for consideration.

¶32

9. Initially, in view of the order of Circle Officer, Maro, not to divert or convert the immovable property bought out of the compensation amount including the land and building in question until the time the dispute is decided by the village authority or the Court, the matter was kept pending. Subsequently, the dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the land for which a compensation was awarded and received by the petitioners have been finally decided by the Circle Officer, Maro on 23.01.2020, whereby the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the disputed land has been allowed, in other words it has been declared that the land for which a compensation was awarded, belongs to the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is also noticed that finally the village authority by the decision dated 28.10.2019, has also directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5, considering that the land for which compensation was awarded and received by

¶33

Page No.# 6/7

¶34

the petitioners belongs to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶35

10. On consideration, it appears that the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with regard to title and ownership of the land and compensation amount has been finally settled by the village authority and Circle officer, Maro, to the extent for payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which constitutes a different subject matter, for which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would have remedy under the law.

¶36

11. The simple issue raised herein is for a direction to consider the process of transfer of the land and building which has been purchased by the petitioners from one Shri Likha Hali, which is pending since 2019. Although, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claims that the said land and building have been purchased out of the compensation amount which has conclusively decided by the village authority and until it is paid to the petitioners, the same cannot be transferred, to which, I am of the view that such a submission cannot be accepted, as the remedy for execution of the said decision of the village authority lies elsewhere, which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 may avail.

¶37

12. On perusal of the provisions of law under Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000, and the rules framed thereunder, allotment on government land on lease may be transferred to a transferee upon fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner is obligated under the law to consider the application for transfer filed by the transferee in accordance with law.

¶38

13. Having considered the submissions and materials, as noted hereinabove, in the facts and circumstances, I am of considered view that the Deputy

¶39

Page No.# 7/7

¶40

Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar is duty bound to consider the application of the petitioners for transfer of the said land and building obviously in accordance with law.

¶41

14. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to consider the application of the petitioner No. 1 for transfer of the said land and property, namely, the land measuring 88 Sqm with building located at E-Sector, Itanagar, in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from today.

¶42

15. It is provided that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 may avail the appropriate remedy for execution of the Keba decision dated 28.10.2019 and the Circle Officer, Maro for recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only from the petitioners. It is expected that since the land for which a compensation has been awarded and the amount received by the petitioners is held to belong to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioner shall abide by the decision of the village authority and the Circle Officer, Maro as the same has attained finality by now.

¶43

16. with the above observation, this writ petition stands

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mojum Ruyi and 2 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 4 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

Bikash Chandra Das Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Sonto Chetry Vs Bomli Basar

Donik Tayu Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Smti Yanga Mara and 4 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Ms Savita Tayem and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Nabam Paul Vs The State of Ap