Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 658 (GAU)

Taba Tagar v. State Of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-09-03

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2020
JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the authorities under the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, we are of the view that notices to the respondent no. 6 i.e. Rajiv Gandhi University (RGU) represented by its Registrar and respondent no. 7, namely the Nyshi Elite Society represented by its President need not be issued for the present. The purpose of not issuing notice to the aforesaid respondents no. 6 and 7 is that the respondents no. 6 and 7 would be equally served if the authority before whom the matter stand remanded back would issue notices to them on the issues raised by the petitioner. 3. Without going into the details of any of the claims made by the writ petitioner, what we take note of is that by the impugned notice dated 11.04.2020 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District Doimukh which was served on the petitioner provides that a complaint was received in the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District, Doimukh, from the Registrar (i/c) of the RGU to the effect that the petitioner is clearing a patch of land which is of the RGU. The second paragraph of the notice arrives at its own conclusion that the land in question is of the RGU as per the letter dated 27.09.2019 and on the basis of some personal verification made by the Officer-In-Charge of Doimukh Police Station, the Security Officer of RGU and HGB Tayang Tarang Village. 4. Accordingly, we are to understand that the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District Doimukh arrived at his conclusion that the land in question belongs to the RGU as because of the letter dated 27.09.2019 of the Government and some personal verification undertaken by the O.C. of Doimukh Police Station, the Security Officer of RGU and HGB Tayang Tarang Village. Nothing has been mentioned that the petitioner was also notified in any manner before arriving at its conclusion as to whose land it is. The conclusion was arrived on the basis of a unilateral action being taken by the RGU and the other authorities under the respondents. Nothing has been mentioned that the petitioner was also notified in any manner before arriving at its conclusion as to whose land it is. The conclusion was arrived on the basis of a unilateral action being taken by the RGU and the other authorities under the respondents. The notice further provides that the petitioner is refrained from doing anything over the land in question until further order or else he will be liable for action under the provisions of law. 5. The said communication of 11.04.2020 which has been impugned in this writ petition, is very much in the nature of a final conclusion having being arrived at by the Sub Divisional Magistrate rather than it being a notice, where all the decisions and conclusions was already arrived at and the petitioner was also informed as to in what manner he had been restrained. 6. The writ petition is instituted on the premises by producing certain documents that the land in question is in fact a private land of the writ petitioner. The details of the land are provided in the Annexure annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the writ petitioner. We find that no opportunity of any kind was ever given to the petitioner to establish that the land in question is his private land and without following the required procedure, the notice/communication dated 11.04.2020 has been issued whereby the rights of the petitioner has already been determined as well as he had already been restrained from doing any act over his own plot of land. 7. We are of the view that the communication dated 11.04.2020 would be unsustainable in the present form. 8. If the petitioner has a legal right over the land by claiming it to be a personal property and the respondents feel that it is the land of the RGU and not of the petitioner, the appropriate procedure ought to have been to notify both the parties and arrive at a definite conclusion depending on the materials that may be produced as to whose land it is and only thereafter the required order be passed. 9. 9. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District Doimukh for issuing notice to both the writ petitioner as well as the respondent RGU and the other authorities which may be interested in the land and conduct a hearing by giving opportunity to the respective parties to produce all such materials that they may desire to produce and arrive at a definite conclusion as to whose land it is. 10. For the purpose, as we have not issued notice to the respondents no. 6 and 7 in the present writ petition, we require the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District Doimukh to also issue the notice to the respondent no. 6 i.e. Rajiv Gandhi University (RGU) and respondent no. 7, namely the Nyshi Elite Society for giving them an opportunity to present their views on the matter in the hearing and the matter only stands remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papumpare District Doimukh. It is further directed that the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papumpare District Doimukh to issue notice to all the parties as indicated above by informing them about the date, place and time of the hearing and also allow them to remain present along with all the relevant materials that may be desire to produce and thereafter pass a reasoned order as to who is the owner of the land. Till such reasoned order is passed, the notice/communication dated 11.04.2020 restraining the writ petitioner from doing any act over the land shall not be given its effect. Similarly till the reasoned order is passed, a restrained order shall remain in force upon the respondent authorities as well as any other authority from doing any act over the land in question till the passing of the reasoned order. 11. After the reasoned order is passed, the same be communicated to all the parties and the respective parties may act upon it as may be permissible under the law. 12. Considering the rival claims, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Papum Pare District Doimukh shall do the needful and complete the process within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. wxyz In the above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of. zyxw