Partly allowed

Chou Hita Manchey v. The Secretary and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging eviction proceedings and sealing of an unauthorized building constructed on government land, this writ court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case alongside similarly situated individuals in ongoing regularization committees. The sealing order was stayed pending this consideration, while clarifying no recognition of indefeasible title.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication sealing the building and eviction proceedings were kept in abeyance. The respondent authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's case with other similarly situated

Chou Hita Manchey Vs The Secretary and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC040013972023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/498/2023

¶5

Chou Hita Manchey S/o Late C. C Manchey, residing near Govt. Qtr. No. C-70/T-II, H Sector, Itanagar, Papum pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Secretary and 3 Ors. Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex Chandannagar P.O/P.S Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex P.O/P.S Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

4:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Housing Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

Page No.# 2/7

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Honi Tana Tara,Rubu Tani,K Chotten,P Siga,Oken Duggong

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 15.09.2026

¶16

Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶17

2. Aggrieved by the communication dated 04.10.2023, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Itanagar Capital Complex, to the Superintendent of Police, Capital Complex, seeking requisition of police personnel for maintaing law and order during eviction drive, whereby the unauthorized building/structure raised by the petitioner is proposed to be sealed pursuant to the eviction proceedings initiated against him and dismissal of his appeal under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶18

3. The petitioner is working as a Constable under the Arunachal Pradesh Police. The Government Quarter No. C-70/T-II at H-Sector, Itanagar, was initially allotted to his father and thereafter to his mother and subsequently to his wife, Smti Rashmi Hopak Manchey, who is working as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department. The petitioner, along with his family members, is residing in the said quarter.

¶19

Page No.# 3/7

¶20

4. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid allotted Government Quarter became dilapidated on account of wear and tear and having outlived its useful life. Accordingly, having no alternative accommodation, the petitioner and his family members occupied a plot of land measuring 90 sq. metres adjacent to the said Government Quarter. The petitioner claims to have applied for allotment of the said plot of land in the years 2003, 2015 and finally in 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed an RCC building on the said plot, maintaining a distance of 4 metres from the Government Quarter, as per the requirement prevailing back then.

¶21

5. During the pendency of consideration of the petitioner's application for allotment, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Itanagar Capital Complex, has initiated proceedings for eviction under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2023. Thereafter, on 17.07.2023, an eviction order was issued against the petitioner by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the said Act of 2003, which also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.2023. Pursuant thereto, the impugned communication has been issued for sealing the building constructed by the petitioner on the land in question.

¶22

6. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that, on its own merits, the petitioner may not have any indefeasible right to claim allotment of the land in question, except an expectation that his application for allotment would be fairly considered in accordance with the applicable Act and

¶23

Page No.# 4/7

¶24

Rules. She submits that the State had already taken a policy decision in the year 2018 for regularization of encroached land in the Itanagar Capital Complex and from time to time, cases relating to regularization/allotment of Government land encroached upon by private individuals have been considered. To that effect, vide recommendation dated 26.09.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has recommended 438 applications of various individuals along with the required documents to the Director of the Department of Land Management, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 219. However, the said recommendation is yet to be considered.

¶25

7. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing the order dated 20.08.2026 and the meeting notice dated 25.08.2026, which relate to recent developments, submits that the authorities have decided to constitute area-wise committees for verification and classification of 5040 legacy land encroachment/regularization cases identified during the legacy survey undertaken in the year 2010. She submits that as the petitioner's case also falls under the said 5040 cases of unauthorized occupation/encroachment of Government land identified during the legacy survey, his case may also be directed to be considered in accordance with the policy of the State. Therefore, she submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by keeping the impugned communication for sealing the residential building of the petitioner in abeyance till such consideration is made.

¶26

8. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner admittedly has no indefeasible right to allotment of the land in question, which is Government land situated adjacent to the Government Quarter allotted to the family members of the petitioner from time to time.

¶27

Page No.# 5/7

¶28

However, considering that similarly situated cases relating to 5040 instances of land encroachment/regularization are presently being considered by the committee in terms of the policy of the State, she submits that she would have no objection if the case of the petitioner is also directed to be considered by the said committee.

¶29

9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

10. Admittedly, the petitioner appears to have occupied a plot of land measuring 90 sq. metres adjacent to the Government Quarter allotted to his family members, presently in the name of his wife. Such occupation of Government land may constitute an encroachment and it is for the competent authority to determine whether the land so occupied is otherwise feasible for allotment in favour of the petitioner in terms of the applicable Act, Rules and policy of the Government.

¶31

11. It is also evident from the record that appropriate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, and the appeal preferred by him against the eviction order came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the petitioner has already been subjected to appropriate legal proceedings in respect of the alleged encroachment.

¶32

12. At the same time, the State authorities have had a policy for regularization of encroachment of Government land in the Itanagar Capital Complex since the year 2018. The materials placed on record, particularly the order dated 20.08.2026 and the meeting notice dated 25.08.2026, indicate that the process

¶33

Page No.# 6/7

¶34

of verification and classification of the legacy land encroachment/regularization cases identified during the survey undertaken in the year 2010 is still under consideration through area-wise committees. It is also not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularization in the year 2019, along with 438 applications of various individuals, and the petitioner's name appears at Sl. No. 219 in the said recommendation.

¶35

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly keeping in view that the State is presently considering the cases of similarly situated persons for regularization/allotment of Government land pursuant to its policy and that the petitioner's case had also been recommended for consideration in the year 2019, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's case deserves to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Act, Rules and policy of the State. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed as recognizing any right or entitlement of the petitioner to allotment or regularization of the land in question. The competent authority shall independently examine the feasibility and eligibility of the petitioner's case in accordance with law and along with similarly situated cases being considered by the area-wise verification committee in terms of the policy of the State.

¶36

14. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with similarly situated individuals strictly in terms of the applicable Act, Rules and the policy of the State and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. The impugned communication dated 04.10.2023 and the proposed action of sealing the residential building constructed by the petitioner on the land in question shall be kept in abeyance till the petitioner's

¶37

Page No.# 7/7

¶38

case is considered and a decision is taken in terms of the above directions.

¶39

15. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Chou Hita Manchey v. The Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chou Hita Manchey v. The Secretary 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