Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 327 (GAU)

Janita Riba v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2002-08-07

I.A.ANSARI

body2002
I.A. ANSARI, J.: By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to own no land of her own, has approached this Court with prayer to issue appropriate writ(s) directing the respondents to regularise and/or allot, in favour of the petitioner, the land measuring about 150 sq. metres located at Sector-C, Naharlagun, in the district of Papumpare, bounded on the north by main road and on the south, east and west by Government quarters, in terms of the Government policy/instructions/guidelines/ directions issued by the respondent No. 2 vide order No. LR/47/84, dated 25.10.94 (Annexure B to the writ petition) addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. In a narrow compass, petitioner's case may be put thus : The petitioner, who is a woman belonging to indigenous Scheduled tribe community of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, has been in possession of the said land since 1990 and she has constructed a RCC building, which is used by her for her business as well as residential accommodation. The petitioner, vide her application, dated 02.05.90 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) applied to the respondent No. 3 for allotment of the said land. After the government Policy / Instructions aforementioned were issued, the petitioner, again, made an application, on 12.06.95 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) addressed to the respondent No. 3 repeating her request for allotment of the said land in her favour. Instead of making allotment to the petitioner as per the Government Policy / Instructions aforementioned, the petitioner was threatened, on 14.05.2002, by the respondent No. 3 with eviction from the said plot of land by demolishing the structures standing thereon. The petitioner has, therefore, as indicated hereinabove, approached this Court. 3.1 have heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the Government Policy/ Instructions, dated 25.10.94, aforementioned aims at regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the Government land not only by those, who have been allotted Government land, but also those, who have never been allotted any Government land. These instructions indicate, submits Mr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the Government Policy/ Instructions, dated 25.10.94, aforementioned aims at regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the Government land not only by those, who have been allotted Government land, but also those, who have never been allotted any Government land. These instructions indicate, submits Mr. Michi, that is any person has been in occupation of any piece of Government land as on 24th July, 1994, such occupation, even if unauthorized shall be regularized by making allotment of the land in favour of its unauthorized occupant and the Deputy Commissioners have, under the said Government Policy/ Instructions, no discretion in this regard. In this view of the matter, points out Mr. Michi, when the petitioner applied for allotment of the said land in her favour on 12.06.95 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), the respondents ought to have allotted the land to the petitioner, particularly, when she was willing to pay requisite fees and/ or penalty for receiving such allotment, but the respondents have not, without any cogent and justified reasons, allotted the said land in favour of the petitioner and instead, threatened her with eviction therefrom. Since the petitioner has, contends Mr. Michi, made out a strong case for receiving allotment of the said land from the respondents in accordance with the said Government policy/instructions, the respondents may be directed, pleads Mr. Michi, to do the needful. 5. Controverting the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Singh has submitted that even under the Government Policy/Instructions aforementioned, the Government is not bound to regularise every unauthorised occupation of Government land by making allotment thereof in favour of its unauthorized occupant inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioners have been given, contends Mr. Singh, the discretion to make their own assessment of the requirement of the person, who seeks such allotment, and it is only when-a Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the requirement of the individual concerned is reasonable, necessary proposal for allotment of the land in favour of such a person may be forwarded to the respondent No. 2 In the case at hand, from the very fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Yupia, Naharlagun has not forwarded petitioner's proposal to the Government for allotment of the said land, it can not be safely inferred, submits Mr. Singh, that the petitioner's requirement is not genuine and she is not entitled to such allotment. 6. Before proceeding any further, it needs to be pointed out that the respondents have not filed any affidavit in this case controverting and/or disputing the averments made in this writ petition. This Court has to, therefore, proceed with the matter treating the facts stated in the writ petition as admitted facts. 7. What emerges from the materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties is that the petitioner has, admittedly, been in possession of the land, in question, since the year 1990, but her occupation of the said land is unauthorised. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner's case is governed by the Government policy/instructions afore­mentioned? A careful reading of the guidelines/instructions contained in the Government's letter, dated 25.10.94, aforementioned shows that there are two categories of unauthorized occupants, who are covered by the said policy letter, one category is of those persons who have been allotted Government land, but are still in unauthorized occupation of some other pieces of Government land as on 24th July, 1994 and the other category is of those persons, who have not been allotted any Government land at all, but are in possession of Government land as on the date aforementioned. 8. In the case at hand, the petitioner is one, who admittedly, owns no land of her own and has not been allotted any Government land and hence, her case is covered by the Government policy / instructions aforementioned. However, a close reading of these guidelines/ instructions shows that the deputy Commissioners are not to act as mere post offices for forwarding the applications seeking allotment of Government land to the authority concerned inasmuch as the guidelines/instructions direct, I notice, the Deputy Commissioners to make their own assessment of "reasonable requirement" of the individual concerned keeping in view the area constructed, if any, by such an individual and his/her family requirements. Coupled with this, the guidelines/ instructions aforementioned further indicate that the Deputy Commissioners have been instructed to redeem and take possession of the excess land. Coupled with this, the guidelines/ instructions aforementioned further indicate that the Deputy Commissioners have been instructed to redeem and take possession of the excess land. In short, thus, the Deputy Commissioners have been instructed to make their own assessment of every unauthorized occupant's own requirements, though, I must hasten to add, these guidelines/instructions, leave the Deputy Commissioners with very limited option, while considering the cases of those unauthorized occupants of Government land, who have not been allotted any Government land in the past. 9. In any view of the matter, therefore, the guidelines/instructions aforementioned shows that generally, all unauthorized occupation of government land till the cut off date (i.e., 24th July, 1994) shall be regularized by making allotment thereof in favour of the individual concerned and it is only in exceptional cases that such unauthorized occupation of Government land by those, who are not allottees of the Government land, can be refused to be regularized. Though the assessment to be made calls for exercise of some discretion by the Deputy Commissioners, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously either in favour of an individual or against him or her. 10. It is also important to note that since the guidelines/instructions aforementioned fixes 24th July, 1994, as the cut off date for regularization of unauthorized occupation of Government land, it logically follows that these guidelines/ instructions make it possible only for those individuals, who have been in occupation of the Government land till 24th July, 1994, to apply for, and/or receive allotment of, such government land. 11. In the case at hand, since the petitioner has been, admittedly, in unauthorized occupation of the government land, in question, since the year 1990 and she, admittedly, owns no land of her own and received no allotment of Government land in the past, it is clear that her case is covered by the guidelines/ instructions aforementioned and hence, when she made the application, dated 12.06.95, aforementioned seeking allotment of the said land in her favour, the respondent No. 3 namely, Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare, ought to have made his own assessment as per the said guidelines/instructions and processed the matter accordingly, but it appears that the respondent No. 3 has not dealt with the matter as per the guidelines/instructions aforementioned and instead, arbitrarily threatened the petitioner with eviction therefrom. 12. 12. Situated thus, this Court is of the firm view that the respondent No. 3 needs to be directed to process the application of the petitioner in accordance with the said guidelines/instructions within a given time frame. 13. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition partly succeeds and in order to remove any possibility of future uncertainty and/or confusion, the petitioner is hereby directed to make, within a period of one month from today, appropriate application(s) to the respondent No. 3 seeking allotment of the said land and if any application is so made by her, the respondent No. 3 shall process the same in accordance with the Government policy/instruction aforementioned and also the provisions of law contained in that behalf. If for any reason, respondent No. 3 adopts the view and decides that the petitioner's application and/or prayer for allotment of the said land can not be acceded to, the petitioner shall be furnished with such decision and while conveying the decision, the respondent No. 3 shall assign reasons therefor. 14. It is, however, made clear that till disposal of application to be made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 as hereinabove directed, petitioner's possession over the said land shall not be disturbed, but the petitioner shall not, till such time that the decision is taken on her application to allot the said land in her favour, raise any further construction/ structure thereon. While making the application to the respondent No. 3, as hereinabove directed, the petitioner shall enclose with her application a certified copy of the judgment and order passed in this writ petition. 15. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 16. No order as to costs.