Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 155 (GAU)

Jumge Kamki v. State Of Arunachal Pradesh

2021-02-19

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel, Mr.T.T. Tara appearing for the appellant.Also heard the learned counsel, Mr.L. Nochi assisted by Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, whereby the order dated 27.12.2013, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was upheld. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix leading to filing of this revision petition may be stated thus in the year 1986, the appellant inherited a plot of land from his deceased father, late Horjum Kamki. At that time, it was a joint family property. In fact, the brothers of the appellant also had shares in that land. At one point of time, the petitioner took step to construct a house at the said plot of land and his deceased father opposed it on the ground that he would not give that land to the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the petitioner being the eldest son, had tried to construct a house there. Thereafter, at the behest of late Horjum Kamki, a Keba was constituted on 14.12.1987. The Keba was held and it had decided that a portion of land measuring 100 x 100 feet should be given to the petitioner for constructing a house at Siru Side. The petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of Keba and he filed an appeal before the Circle Officer. He contended that in the original Keba decision the words "Siru Side" were not mentioned and those two words were subsequently inserted into the Keba decision by some unscrupulous person. Finally, the Circle Officer decided that the land measuring 100 x 100 feet should be at Kipo Side not Siru Side. 4. In the order dated 08.01.1988, the Circle Officer directed the petitioner to construct a house at Kipo Side. Late Horjum Kamki was again aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Circle Officer. This time he filed an appeal before the Extra Assistant Commissioner (J) on 11.01.1988. The Extra Assistant Commissioner issued an order on 11.01.1988, asking all concerned to abide by the decision of the Keba dated 14.12.1987 whereby the petitioner was directed not to construct any house on the land of his father, late Horjum Kamki. 5. This time he filed an appeal before the Extra Assistant Commissioner (J) on 11.01.1988. The Extra Assistant Commissioner issued an order on 11.01.1988, asking all concerned to abide by the decision of the Keba dated 14.12.1987 whereby the petitioner was directed not to construct any house on the land of his father, late Horjum Kamki. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.1988 the present petitioner approached Shri Bomsen Likar, the PI, Aalo for settlement of the dispute. Thereafter, a Keba was again constituted on 20.01.1988. This time, the Keba held that the petitioner would have right to occupy land from the side of Hiru River to the land of Shri Karom Noshi. In pursuance of the Keba decision dated 20.01.1988 the petitioner constructed his house in the aforesaid land in the year 1988 itself. In the year 1989, a granary house was also built on the back side of the house. Unfortunately, in the year 2004, a cyclone came and destroyed the entire property of the petitioner. 6. In the year 2011, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh initiated a project for a double lane road. Now, the private respondent Shri Modo Kamki staked is claim upon the land of the petitioner. In fact, on 17.08.2011, Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, had issued an order stating that the land measuring 9 metre in width all along the existing BRTF road between Aalo Kaying would be requisitioned for double lanning of the road. The Deputy Commissioner asked the people having their lands in the proposed area to appear before him with documents, so that compensation could be paid for acquisition of the land under Section 10 of Jhum Land Regulation Act of 1947. 7. Since private respondent Shri Modo Kamki staked his claimed upon the land of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner without hearing the petitioner and without relying upon the Keba decision dated 20.01.1988, decided the matter in favour of Shri Modo Kamki. 8. The petitioner has claimed that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlment Act, 2013 (in short Act of 2013), the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner does not have the right to decide the title over land in favour of any individual and this is the issue on which the present appeal has been filed. 9. 9. Per contra, the private respondent Shri Modo Kamki has denied all the averments of the petitioner. The private respondent has submitted that the land originally belonged to his grandfather late Pakshor Kamki. The Genealogy of family has been shown like this --- image 1 10. The private respondent has claimed that the present petitioner has sold many joint family properties to some other persons and for that matter his father late Horjum Kamki was not interested in giving any land specifically to the petitioner. The respondent agreed that the Keba decision dated 10.12.1987, allotted and demarcated a plot of land measuring 100 x 100 Sq ft from the side of Hiru River towards Kaying Side to the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a dwelling house. It is claimed by the respondent that the Keba had clarified that the petitioner and Hornya Kamki shall not claim any more share in the disputed land. 11. The private respondent has further pleaded that the Keba decision dated 20.01.1988 was a manufactured one and intended to take over another plot of land that belongs to the respondent. 12. The private respondent has pointed out that on the basis of manufactured Keba decision dated 20.01.1988, the petitioner even filed one partition suit No. 03/1995 before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo and on 08.03.1999, the Deputy Commissioner decided that Shri Kenpe Kamki will be entitled to construct a house on the purchased land. The aforesaid order was contrary to the decision of the Keba decision dated 14.12.1987. And therefore, late Horjum Kamki, filed an appeal before the High Court which was registered as MFA No.01 (AP) 2001. The High Court in its order dated 01.02.2002 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 08.03.1999 passed in partition suit No. 03/1995 and declared that no Keba was in fact held on 20.01.1988. A review petition was filed against the order of the High Court and the review petition was also dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2003. Since no appeal was filed before a Divisional Bench the order of this Court dated 01.02.2002 attained finality. 13. Mr. Tara, appearing for the appellant has submitted that under the provision of the Act of 2013, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to decide the title of an individual in respect of any property. Since no appeal was filed before a Divisional Bench the order of this Court dated 01.02.2002 attained finality. 13. Mr. Tara, appearing for the appellant has submitted that under the provision of the Act of 2013, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to decide the title of an individual in respect of any property. Mr.Nochi, on the other hand, has submitted that the Act of 2013 is not applicable in this case because the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was acquiring the land under Section 10 of Jhum Land Regulation of 1945. 14. Here the Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation of 1945 may be visited. It is quoted hereunder:- "10. The Government may acquire any Jhum land required for a public purpose. No formal acquisition proceedings shall be necessary but an opportunity shall be given to those having rights in the land to show cause against such acquisition and reasonable compensation shall be paid for all land required under this section." 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties. 16. There is no doubt that the dispute between the parties is based on the issue as to who will get the compensation. So the natural question that arises at this stage is who has the title over the land. I have gone through the order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. This order is based on some previous decisions only. The order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo is not an independent decision. 17. Be that as it may, this Court has reasons to agree with the pleadings of the appellant that impugned order dated 05.10.2017, holding that the title over the disputed land belongs to the private respondents is bad in law, because under the existing law of land, the Deputy Commissioner is not entitled to decide the title of an individual over any property. For this purpose, a civil Court is a proper authority. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.10.2017 stands set aside. 18. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.