Markir Taipodia Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

2:The Deputy Commissioner (D.C) Age: 0 Occupation : Lower Siang District Likabali Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Mindo Taipodia Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Lt. Kirmin Taipodia Lika Village Lower Siang District P.O/P.S Likabali Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Bakar Dulom, S Tsering,B Padung,Vijay Jamoh

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Tao Tarin,Kirmani Lollen,Terji Kamchi,Gamken Bam,A T Tara,Binter Picha,Jumgam Jini,Gegum Lollen

¶13

Page No.# 2/7

¶14

B E F O R E

¶15

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶16

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri V. Jamoh, Advocate. Advocate for the respondents : Shri R.H. Nabam, Addl. A.G., A.P. & Shri G. Bam, Advocate, R/3. Date on which judgment is : NA Reserved. Date of pronouncement of : 04.02.2026. Judgment. Whether the pronouncement : NA. is of the operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment : Yes. has been pronounced?

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

¶18

Heard Shri V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. A.G., representing the State and Shri G. Bam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶19

2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶20

Page No.# 3/7

¶21

3. As per the facts projected, the grandfather of the petitioner (respondent no.3) had gifted a plot of land in the year 2020 vide a Gift Agreement executed before the Executive Magistrate, Likabali, Lower Siang District by following the due process of law. The petitioner had accordingly taken possession of the aforesaid plot of land and applied for Land Possession Certificate (LPC). Such LPC was issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2022 for the plot measuring 14303.49 sq. mtrs. for residential purpose. However, vide the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, the LPC was cancelled and the same was directed to be surrendered.It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in this present writ petition.

¶22

4. Sri Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable and without showing any reasons, the LPC has been cancelled. He has reiterated that the LPC was issued on 15.02.2022 in accordance with law. He has also emphasised that no opportunity of any manner was provided to the petitioner before such cancellation and therefore, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶23

5. Shri Nabam, learned Addl. A.G. has, however, strenuously opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the process of issuance of LPC was not proper and the petitioner had made incorrect statements while applying for the same. He has also submitted that there was an undertaking in the application for such LPC that in the event any incorrect statement or forgery was involved, such LPC would be cancelled without any notice. He has submitted that in view of such undertaking, the impugned order has been rightly passed on 09.10.2023.

¶24

Page No.# 4/7

¶25

6. Shri Bam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the initiation of the process of issuance of LPC was not bona fide and the petitioner had made false statement while applying for the same. While drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by his client on 11.09.2024, more particularly, the application of the petitioner which has been enclosed as Annexure-2, the learned counsel has submitted that there is a declaration that the statement made in the application are true and if it is found to be false/ forged or misleading, the LPC issued may be cancelled without giving any notice. He has submitted that in view of such undertaking, the requirement of issuing notice would not arise.

¶26

7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on records carefully examined.

¶27

8. The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 pertains to cancellation of the LPC. A reading of the same, reveals that the LPC was issued on 15.02.2022 in respect of which, a complaint was lodged by the respondent no. 3. The impugned order also states that on the strength of undertaking affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the LPC issued is cancelled. There is, however, no disclosure in the impugned order that any incorrect statement or forgery was indulged into by the petitioner while applying for the LPC. Be that as it may, the primary reason which appears from the impugned order of cancellation is based on a complaint made by the respondent no. 3.

¶28

9. This Court is of the opinion that a right had accrued to the petitioner upon issuance of the LPC and if such right is sought to be taken away, there is a basic

¶29

Page No.# 5/7

¶30

requirement to give an opportunity to the petitioner so that he can show cause. However, from the impugned order of cancellation and the other materials on record, it does not appear that any such recourse was taken before passing the same. This Court has also considered the undertaking given by the petitioner while applying for the LPC which gives the authority a discretion to cancel such LPC in case of making incorrect statement or indulging any forgery. However, the impugned order does not disclose regarding any consideration on the aspect of there being any incorrect statement or forgery indulged into by the petitioner while applying for the LPC. In fact, the impugned order is totally silent in that aspect.

¶31

10. It is a settled law that by means of an affidavit, an order cannot be justified unless, reasons appear from the order itself. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the celebrated case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commission , reported in 1978 AIR 851 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring with approval to the landmark case of Gordhandas Bhanji Vs. Commissioner of Police , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 has held as follows:

¶32

“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji :

¶33

‘ Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations

¶34

Page No.# 6/7

¶35

subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’

¶36

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

¶37

11. Adherence to the principles of natural justice in discharge of administrative action is sacrosanct and only in very few exceptional circumstances, the same can be done away with. In exercise of judicial review by a Writ Court, one of the essential element of examination is as to whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to. Such requirement is an inbuilt safeguard of the legal rights of a citizen. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the landmark case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in which, it was observed that any procedure established by law must be right, just and fair and further that, even if a statue does not expressly provide for a hearing, the requirement of natural justice is implied to ensure fairness. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration a plethora of decision on the subject, including the celebrated English case of Ridge Vs. Baldwin [1964 AC 40] in which, it was held that a duty was cast upon the State to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, especially the doctrine of audi alteram partem before taking any action having adverse civil consequences. It was held that the doctrine was not only to secure justice but also to ensure that a citizen is treated with a fair procedure and there is no miscarriage of justice. This Court is

¶38

Page No.# 7/7

¶39

of the opinion that the impugned action undoubtedly would have adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner and therefore, the requirement of affording him a reasonable opportunity would be mandatory.

¶40

12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, while this Court would not like to enter into the inter-se merits of the dispute between the parties, only on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is interfered with and set aside. The authorities would, however, be at liberty to hold and conclude the process of adjudication of the complaint in accordance with law by giving all the stakeholders an opportunity of hearing. Till such process is completed, status quo shall be maintained. In other words, the petitioner shall not change the nature and feature of plot of land in question and no third-party rights be created by the petitioner.

¶41

13. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated above.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Markir Taipodia v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Markir Taipodia v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors. Vs M/s T T Enterprises and Anr.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and 3 Ors. Vs Mahabir Tiwari

Moinal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Nabam Sonu Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Peli Ete and 27 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Tapa alias Kiapa Maki Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 3 Ors.