Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 555 (GAU)

Jumdo Jini v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2015-05-12

B.K.SHARMA, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
ORDER : 1. Registry shall register this appeal since the delay in filing the same has been condoned vide order passed today in I.A. (WA) No. 05 (AP) of 2005. Heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned State Counsel, as well as Mr. K. Jini, learned standing counsel of the Directorate of Land Management. We have also perused the materials on records. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015, passed in W.P. (C) No. 24 (AP) of 2014 dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant and thereby upholding the recommendation made in favour of the respondent no. 5, for allotment of land in question. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are briefly stated below. 3. The petitioner claiming himself to be a progressive fish farmer approached the Fishery Department, at Aalo, with a request to allow him to run the particular fish ponds including one nursery pond on lease basis and in consideration of his prayer the authorities by its order dated 13.08.2003, allowed him to run two numbers of stocking ponds and one nursery pond on trial cum rental basis on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. An agreement was made on 13.08.2003, in which the petitioner furnished a undertaking that he will not claim the said ponds for his permanent occupation. 4. It appears that the period of lease was extended from time to time. On the basis of the application made by the petitioner a plot of land measuring 35 square metres near the ponds was allotted in his favour on 04.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner made a further application on 13.04.2009, seeking allotment of 660 square metres of land and according to him 35 square metres of land was not adequate for running the fishery business as well as for cultivation and distribution of fish seeds, broiler to other farmers. Thus, the claim for allotment of the land measuring 660 square metres was made for the purpose of running the fishery business. 5. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for allotment of the aforesaid land was rejected and communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo vide letter dated 29.12.2011. Thus, the claim for allotment of the land measuring 660 square metres was made for the purpose of running the fishery business. 5. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for allotment of the aforesaid land was rejected and communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo vide letter dated 29.12.2011. When the matter rested thus, the Deputy Commissioner made a recommendation for allotment of the land in question in favour of the Respondent No. 5 and thereafter the Director, Land Management conveyed the approval of the Government for allotment of 8,600 square metres of land to the Respondent no. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, Land Management and Government of Arunachal Pradesh to cancel the proposed land allotment of Government Fish Pond at Aalo to All Ato Paktu Ao Welfare Society. Being aggrieved by the proposal and approval accorded by the Government for allotment of land in question in favour of Respondent No. 5, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition, being W.P. (C) No. 24 (AP) of 2014. In the Writ Petition the petitioner made the following prayers: "In the premises afore said, your humble petitioner prays that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records and issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why Writ in nature of Certiorari shall not be issued quashing and setting aside the order No. WS/DEV/Fish-1/2011 dated 29.12.2011/order No. LMW/S-18/11 Dated 9.4.2013, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure) and conveyed letter No. Order No. LR-122/87/1477 dated 7.9.2013 (Annexure) issued by the Director of Land Management Government of Arunachal Pradesh and further to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing/commanding the respondent to regularise the occupied plot of the petitioner to which he had already submitted various representation for extensions and regularisation of his additional where he was running fish pond and to show cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties and perusing the records, make the Rule absolute and/or pass further or other orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper." 6. Annexure-13 is the communication dated 29.12.2011, by which the petitioner was informed that his application for allotment of land could not be considered since the same was within the area of Government Fishing Pond. Annexure-13 is the communication dated 29.12.2011, by which the petitioner was informed that his application for allotment of land could not be considered since the same was within the area of Government Fishing Pond. Annexure-15 is the communication dated 9.4.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo to the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh making proposal for allotment of the particular land in favour of the Respondent No. 5. Annexure-16 is the communication dated 7.9.2013 of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Department of Land Management made to the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, on the subject of allotment of Government land to the Respondent No. 5. By the said communications the Government approval to the proposal was conveyed with the direction for issuance of formal land allotment order. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed the writ petition with the above quoted prayer. The writ petition having been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2015, the petitioner as appellant has filed this appeal. 8. Mr. N. Tagia, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant submits that the orders of Preference/recommendation/approval for allotment of land in favour of the Respondent No. 5 is illegal. Referring to the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Rules, 2002, he submits that the proposal and approval has been accorded in complete violation of the Rules. He has also placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (2011) 5 SCC 29 . 9. Mr. Nabam, learned State Counsel submits that the grounds urged in the appeal were not the grounds in the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner wants further allotment of 660 square metres of land in addition to what was allotted to him earlier. He submits that the writ petitioner occupied the stocking ponds, referred to above, on lease basis on a clear undertaking that he would never claim the ponds for permanent occupation low ever, he prayed for allotment of land nearby the pond and the authority allotted him 35 square metres. Not being satisfied with such allocation of land, the petitioner made further claim for allotment of 660 square metres of land. As regards allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 5, Mr. Nabam learned state Counsel submits that the recommendation/ approval in favour of respondent no. Not being satisfied with such allocation of land, the petitioner made further claim for allotment of 660 square metres of land. As regards allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 5, Mr. Nabam learned state Counsel submits that the recommendation/ approval in favour of respondent no. 5 has been done in public interest and not for any private interest, as in the case of the petitioner. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. In the writ petition, the petitioner made claim that Aalo area is very popular in Fish farming and accordingly the petitioner, being a progressive fish farmer, made claim for allotment of the Fishing Ponds and according to his prayer, the allotment was made on lease basis. The further stand of the writ petitioner was that the proposal made in favour of respondent no. 5, although it is for establishing the Heritage Centre, but the Deputy Commissioner played the all important role as he too belongs to the particular Clan, namely, Pakto Clan. According to the petitioner, the Government ought to have considered that as there was shortage of supply of fish at Aalo, the land claimed by the petitioner ought to have been settled with him rather than with the respondent no. 5 for establishing the Heritage Centre. 11. From the tenor of the case projected in the writ petition, what is discernible is that the petitioner wants to have the land for his fish fanning business, but on the other hand the land has been recommended for settlement with the respondent no. 5 for establishing not only the Heritage Centre, but also for old age home museum cum research centre, car parking place, Children Park etc. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in the writ proceedings, it has been stated that the Lease Agreement entered into with the petitioner was cancelled on 26.5.2010, but in spite of such cancellation, the petitioner continued to encroach upon the Government Fishing Pond and thereafter applied for allotment of the land. His application was rejected on 29.12.2011. 12. His application was rejected on 29.12.2011. 12. The Rules, namely, the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Rules, 2002 that has been referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant makes preference for allotment of land for agricultural purpose, for construction of dwelling houses, Co-operative Societies, etc. Referring to the said provisions, it is the case of the petitioner that before allotting the land in favour of the Respondent No. 5, applications ought to have been invited from the intending interested persons/organisations and it is in this context, the learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress (supra). In the said decision the Apex Court was concerned with allotment of land, grant of quotas, permits, licences, etc. and the norms thereof. While observing that in respect of allotment of land, the State or its agencies/ instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to its sweet will and domain of the political pressure and/or officers of the State, it was also observed that the same does not mean that the State can never allot land to the institutions/organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or philanthropic activities or rendering services to the society. As has been submitted by the learned State Counsel, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh there is a distinct and long standing practise for allotment of land and in the instant case, due procedure was followed for allotment of the land in favour of the respondent no. 5. As discussed above, on the basis of the application made, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner made his official recommendation and thereafter the matter was placed before the Director of Land Management for consideration and Government approval. Necessary procedure in this regard was followed and finally Government approval has also been accorded. As noted above, the purpose for allotment of the land is to establish the Heritage Centre coupled with Old Age Home. Museum cum-Research Centre. Car Parking Place and Children Park etc., which the Government considered to be in public interest, rather than for the fish farming business of the Petitioner. The learned Single Judge having dealt with all aspects of the matter in the judgment and order under appeal, we find no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly this writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.