Tabi Puchung and 9 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040002902021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/80/2021

¶5

Tabi Puchung and 9 Ors. S/O LT. TINPU PUCHUNG, VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE, PO/PS MECHUKA, DIST. SHI YOMI, AP. 2: SHRI TAKO PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/OLT. TATIK PADUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP. 3: SHRI ONI PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TATIK PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP. 4: SHRI PAKPOR PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TAJAP PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶6

5: SHRI TATUM PUCHUNG

¶7

Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TACHAK PUCHUNG

¶8

Page No.# 2/6

¶9

VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶10

6: SHRI LIBO PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TAMI PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶11

7: KOTIN PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O SHRI MERE PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶12

8: SHRI BOJER PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TINPU PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶13

9: SHRI TAKAR PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O LT. TACHAK PUCHUNG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP.

¶14

10: SHRI TATO PUCHUNG Age: Occupation : S/O SHRI TAMI PUCHUNG HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI

Page No.# 3/6

AP

VERSUS

The State of AP and 2 Others REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. OF AP.2:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Age: 0 Occupation : MENCHUKA SHI YOMI DISTRICT AP. 3:SHRI LAME PUSHANG Age: 0 Occupation : S/OLT. TACHAM PUSANG VILLAGE HIRI VILLAGE PO/PS MECHUKA DIST. SHI YOMI AP

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Jumgam Jini,Gamken Bam,Adam Tatak,Terji Kamchi

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶23

ORDER

¶24

06.02.2026

¶25

Heard Shri J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Y. Riram, learned State Counsel, A.P.

¶26

2. Considering that this writ petition is pending since the year 2021 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admissions stage.

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

3. The approach to this Court has been made with the following prayer:

¶29

“ PRAYER

¶30

In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that your lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, issue Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why:

¶31

1. The impugned Judgement & Order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Umpire and Arbitrators in connection with the land disputed case no. MK/JUD-104/2020 (Shri Lame Pushang versus Ekang Domak versus Puchung), should not be set aside and quashed.

¶32

2. And further pleased to direct the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Menchuka, Shi Yom District to take up the matter at his court a fresh by impleading the petitioners as one of the necessary or to initiate steps as per the procedure and/ or why further other order(s) shall not be passed after perusing the records and hearing the parties as your Lordship deems fit proper.

¶33

-AND-

¶34

It is further prayed that pending disposal of this petition, in interim Your Lordship may be further pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Judgement & Order dated 15.09.2020, passed by the umpire and Arbitrators in connection with case no. MK/JUD104/2020 (Shri Lame Pushang versus Ekang Domak versus Puchung), till disposal of the instant Writ Petition. ”

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

4. As per the facts projected, the petitioners were in possession of certain land which was in dispute. However, one of the members of the clan have sold out the land through a Sale Deed dated 14.03.2020. However, the land fell within the proposed Highway (Right of Way) and there were multiple claims for compensation. The matter was sought to be settled within the Kebang and ultimately, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 has been passed by the Arbitrator without following the principles of law as provided in the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (Regulation 1945).

¶37

5. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that such dispute has to be settled in terms of the Regulation of 1945.

¶38

6. Shri Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed into service an order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C)/34/2021 (Kadung Kodung & Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. & Ors.) . In the said case, a similar situation had arisen and this Court had interfered with such impugned action with a liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for settlement of dispute in accordance with law.

¶39

7. Shri Riram, the learned State Counsel has not objected to the aforesaid proposition of principle.

¶40

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon a broad consensus arrived at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

15.09.2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator stands set aside. The dispute is now required to be taken up for resolution strictly in accordance with law under the Regulation of 1945. Such resolution may be done expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Tabi Puchung and 9 Ors. v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabi Puchung and 9 Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s K.G.B Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Dasanglu Pul Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Techi Menia Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Dr.(Mrs) Tassar Pana and 11 Ors. Vs The Union of India and Anr.

Darmar Ete and Anr. Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Tomin Ete and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 18 Ors.