Allowed

Tenya Libang v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jan 2025WP(C)/81/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court quashed an eviction order dated 25.01.2024 issued to a resident in an Educational colony. The court held the order was unsustainable under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, as it functioned as a direction to vacate rather than a valid show-cause notice required by Section 4.

What did the court decide?

The impugned eviction order/notice dated 25.01.2024 is set aside and quashed. The consequential order dated 05.02.2024 is declared a nullity.

Tenya Libang Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040002332024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/81/2024

¶5

Tenya Libang

¶6

Wife of Shri Opang Libang, permanent resident of Simong Village, PO and PS Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at GHSS Colony, Yingkiong, PO and PS Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar

¶9

2:The Secreatry Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Deputy Commisisoner Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Siang District Yingkiong Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

4:The Addl Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Yingkiong Upper Siang District Govt of Arunachal Prades

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ojing Pada, G Loyi,D Riba,Likha Moriam

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Land Management),Dugmar Kamduk

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 10-01-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. O. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No. 1, 3 & 4. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

¶19

Challenge made in this writ petition is to the eviction notice/order dated 25.01.2024, issued by the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the occupied excess land and to remove all the structures, within 7 (seven) days and the consequential eviction order/notice dated 05.02.2024, issued by the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to remove the illegal structures constructed by her on the plot of land belonging to the Education Department within 15 (fifteen) days, failing which, necessary action would be initiated against her in terms of the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act of 2003, in short).

¶20

The case projected, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the petitioner has been allotted a plot of land measuring 108 Sqmtrs at Government Higher Secondary School Colony, Yingkiong, in the year, 2020. However, since the plot was not feasible and sufficient for

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

construction of proper dwelling house, she had applied for allotment of the adjacent plot of land measuring 140 Sqmtrs, by way of extension, in addition to her already allotted plot, on 21.05.2020.

¶23

It is the contention of Mr. O. Pada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the issuance of impugned eviction order by the ADC-CumEstate Officer, without considering that the petitioner has already applied for allotment of the adjacent plot of land measuring 140 Sqmtrs by way of extension before the competent authority, is not tenable. He further submits that the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 has been issued without following the requirement of law, as provided under the Act of 2003, inasmuch as, the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer has directed the petitioner to vacate the alleged excess occupied land measuring 24 Sqmtrs without notice to show-cause.

¶24

By referring to the provisions of the Act of 2003, Mr. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, first a notice has to be issued by providing an opportunity to show-cause, thereafter, on showing cause, if any order is passed, further appeal provision is provided in the said Act. However, on receipt of the first impugned order/notice dated 25.01.2024, the petitioner had submitted the explanation by apprising that she has already applied for extension of additional plot, which is pending before the competent authority. He submits that since the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 has been issued in violation of the provisions of law, the consequential order dated 05.02.2024 would be nullity. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 may be set aside and quashed.

¶25

Page No.# 4/6

¶26

Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate submits that in fact, the petitioner has illegally occupied an excess land measuring 24 Sqmtr near the DDSE’s Official residence at Yingkiong. However, the impugned order being a direction to vacate the occupied excess land, is not in accordance with the provisions of the law, as provided in the Act of 2003. He submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2003.

¶27

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the materials available on record.

¶28

The ADC-Cum-Estate Officer, Yingkiong, issued the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 by directing the petitioner to vacate the occupied excess land measuring 24 Sqmtrs on the ground that the petitioner has illegally occupied the same, which is towards the DDSE’s Official residence. Although it appears that the order was to be complied within 7 (seven) days, bare reading of the order, indicates that it was not a notice as such, but a notice to vacate as same clearly indicates a direction to vacate the said illegally occupied excess land. Records annexed to the writ petition, reveals that the petitioner has been allotted a plot of land measuring 108 Sqmtrs and thereafter, she has applied for extension of further land measuring 140 Sqmtrs by filing the required documents before the competent authority, which is said to be still pending.

¶29

On receipt of the impugned order, it indicates that the petitioner has submitted her reply by apprising the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer that she had already applied for allotment of excess land occupied by her. However, the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer rejected such claim, vide order dated 05.02.2024,

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

on insufficient grounds to justify her excess occupation of the public premises, which belongs to the Education Department. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.02.2024, the petitioner has been directed to remove the illegal structure on the said excess plot of land, belonging to Education Department within 15 (fifteen) days.

¶32

Section 4 of the Act of 2003, provides for requirement of issuance of notice to show-cause before eviction notice. Thereafter, on cause being shown, the authority has the power to evict the person who is an unauthorized occupant of the public premises.

¶33

Section 12 of the Act of 2003, provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or Section 7 or Section 8 or Section 10 to an appellant officer who shall be the Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the public premises are situated.

¶34

On bare reading of the provisions of the Act of 2003, it reveals that a bare minimum notice has to be issued initially to the person who is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises directing him to show cause before issuance of eviction order. On cause being shown, an appropriate order for eviction would be passed. It also provides a remedy of appeal under Section 12 against the order of an Estate Officer under Section 5 or Section 7 or Section 8 or Section 10 of the Act of 2003. In the present case, although the impugned order is termed as notice, but the tone and tenor of the notice clearly indicates that it was an eviction notice as the same is a clear direction to vacate the said occupied excess land, which in the considered view of this Court, cannot be termed as a notice

¶35

Page No.# 6/6

¶36

in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2003. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable as the law requires a show-cause notice to be issued to the person who is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises.

¶37

Having considered the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the materials annexed to the writ petition and also considering that the learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the impugned order may not be tenable as it cannot be said to be a show-cause notice in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2003, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 is required to be interfered with.

¶38

Accordingly, the impugned eviction order/notice, dated 25.01.2024, issued by the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer, Upper Siang District, Yingkion, vide Case No. YEC-05/2024/1932, is hereby set aside and quashed, being not in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2003. It is needless to observed that since the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 is held to be illegal, the consequential order, dated 05.02.2024, issued by the ADCCum-Estate Officer, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, shall have no sanctity under law and is a nullity.

¶39

However, the ADC-Cum-Estate Officer or for that matter, any other competent authority, would be at liberty to initiate/procced against the petitioner strictly in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003.

¶40

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Tenya Libang v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenya Libang 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

Shri Nyajum Yinyo and 5 Ors. Vs the State of A.P. and 5 Ors.

Charu Tamam and 2 Ors. Vs Charu Tana and 2 Ors.

All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Associations (Aapeta) and Anr. Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Rehena Khatun @ Rehana Khatun Vs The State of Ap

Shri Biki Talum Minor Vs Smti Biki Yaha and 5 Ors.

Singtung Yorpen Vs The STate of Ap and Anr.