Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 643 (GAU)

Joram Anu S/o Shri Joram Son v. State Of A. P.

2021-11-01

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by Shri Joram Anu, son of Shri Joram Son of Yachuli, Lower Subansiri District challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order, No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro has cancelled the LPC, granted to the petitioner earlier, without hearing him. 2. The factual background, necessary for proper appreciation of the dispute in the case in hand, is adumbrated here in below:- “The petitioner, Shri Joram Anu inherited a plot of land measuring 3500 Sq. Mtrs. from his father at Yachuli and he used to cultivate the land without any disturbance from any quarters for many years. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for LPC to ward off any attempt made by any individuals or organisation and submitted his application to the Deputy Commissioner on 16.03.2007. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities and holding necessary inquiry and obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Divisional Forest Officer, Hapoli, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro granted him LPC vide Memo No. LMZ/LPC/Y-1/2006 dated 21.06.2007. After that, the Divisional Forest Officer, Hapoli removed the barbed wire fencing and destroyed his orange orchard and other plantation from the said plot of land, then he approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro to know about the reasons. And he received an order on 07.09.2011, from the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that LPC issued to him was cancelled without issuing any notice to him. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing a writ petition being No. WP(C) 469(AP)/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.01.2013 by setting aside and quashing the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, by which he had cancelled the LPC of the petitioner. While disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner, this Court directed that the respondent authorities may approach the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. And then the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.08.2014, to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro for assessment of his land for acquisition of his Trans-Arunachal Highway which is passing through the land of the petitioner and the payment of the proper compensation thereof. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro. And then the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.08.2014, to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro for assessment of his land for acquisition of his Trans-Arunachal Highway which is passing through the land of the petitioner and the payment of the proper compensation thereof. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro. Then he waited for issuance of proper notice to him before proceeding any further with the cancellation of the LPC. However, he received a copy of the order No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011 dated 30.09.2014, on 26.11.2014, wherein, it was stated that on 11.08.2014, the representation filed by him for assessment of his land for Trans-Arunachal Highway was taken up along with the complaints filed by some persons for cancellation of the LPC of the petitioner and 13 other persons. And notices were issued to the petitioners in WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012, to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro on 11.08.2014 and notices were duly communicated to the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions and it was also revealed that Shri Toko Puna and the petitioner in WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012 represented all other petitioners and after hearing him, the complainants and the Department officials, the LPC of the petitioner along with the 13 others have been cancelled. It was also stated that the petitioner never received any notice from the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro and he never attended the said hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in his office. And thereafter, the petitioner preferred one application before the Deputy Commissioner to furnish a copy of the complaint letter against his LPC, notice/call letter issued to the petitioner for hearing, minutes of proceeding and attendance sheet, if any, of the said proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro. Thereafter, the petitioner received response from the District Land revenue and Settlement Officer (DLRSO) Ziro, the complaint letter and the proceeding vide letter No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011 dated 04.12.2014, but the petitioner did not receive any copy of the call letter/notice for attending the hearing on 11.08.2014 and it is implied from the same that there was no record of notice issued to the petitioner in said hearing. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed behind his back without affording him an opportunity of being heard, which is in total violation of the principle of natural justice and the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2013. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed behind his back without affording him an opportunity of being heard, which is in total violation of the principle of natural justice and the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2013. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or to pass any other order as deemed fit.” 3. The respondents on receipt of notice, entered appearance and submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the writ petition. It was stated that Yachuli Forest Range has 1795.20 Ha., and plantation was created in different years with valuable trees species including tea garden right from the year 1960 by incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs.85,60,575/-by the State Government. The entire plantation area is under proposal for constituting as ARF/VRF (Anchal Reserved Forest/ Village Reserve Forest) as per public demand and their resolution, wherein administration and Forest Department are urged upon to control and safeguard the same from encroachment by individual inside plantation and illegal felling of trees. Out of the total plantation area, the writ petitioner, Shri Joram Anu has obtained LPC for an area 3500.00 sqm. by fraudulent means with illegal intention for his personal gain. The said plot of MFP (Minor forest Produces) i.e. Tea plantation was raised in the year 1966, which is still in existence. And on obtaining LPC by the petitioner by means of manipulation and fraudulent, one Shri Toko Tei, a conscious citizen of the locality filed one RTI against the LPC obtained inside the forest plantation and then process for verification of the facts to unearth the truth started as per the directives of the State Information Commissioner, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Thereafter, various committees were constituted by DFO, Ziro, CC, WAC, Banderdewa and the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro to find out the truth. Thereafter, various committees were constituted by DFO, Ziro, CC, WAC, Banderdewa and the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro to find out the truth. Verifications were carried out and report was submitted and after submission of the verification reports by various committees, and after hearing in the court of RTI Commissioner, the truth was revealed as per field testimony and finding of the committee that the plot against the LPC is very much forest plantation and accordingly, basing on the committee report, NOC issued was called back and on perusal of the various committee report and as per observation of the RTI Commissioner, the then Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri cancelled the LPC of Shri Joram Anu vide order No.LMZ/Can/LPC-1/2011/3739-42 dated 07.09.2011. The said order was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, in a writ petition No. 469(AP)/2011, preferred by the present petitioner Shri Joram Anu and directed to here the petitioner again. And thereafter, conducting hearing on 11.08.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District cancelled the LPC of Shri Joram Anu and 13 others vide No.LMZ/T/Higway-1/2011, dated 30.09.2014, stating that the subject land in question belongs to the Forest Plantation Area of Yachuli Forest Range. It is also stated that the statements and allegations made in the writ petition are inconsistent and contrary to the records borne out. As such, the order recalling the LPC suffers from no illegality and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 4. I have Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 5. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 30.09.2014, by which the learned Deputy Commissioner had cancelled the LPC of the petitioner and 13 others, not only violates the principle of natural justice and also the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 469(AP)/2011. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has never heard the petitioner and there is no record of issuance of notice to him. Without hearing the petitioner and without issuing any notice to him, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro has violated the fundamental right of the petitioner. To bolster his submission Mr. Panging has referred one case law Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . Mr. Without hearing the petitioner and without issuing any notice to him, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro has violated the fundamental right of the petitioner. To bolster his submission Mr. Panging has referred one case law Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . Mr. Panging, therefore, contended to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for hearing afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 6. Whereas, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh taking this Court through the order dated 30.09.2014, submits that in the said order No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has heard the petitioner, whose name is mentioned at the serial No.1 in the order. However, Mr. Nabam, the learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that if, the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner then this is a fit case for remand. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned advocates of both the sides, we have gone through the impugned order dated 30.09.2014, and also the pleading of the parties and the documents placed on record. But, I find no record of issuance of notice to the petitioner, Shri Joram Anu and his appearance before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, though, in the order dated 30.09.2014 the name of LPC holders along with the name of the petitioner is mentioned and also the name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial No.15, and a copy of the impugned order is also forwarded to him yet, I find no materials to show that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ziro before passing the impugned order, has afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. From a close scrutiny of the order dated 30.09.2014, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro cancelled the LPC of the petitioner and 13 others as per the inquiry report and after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner of WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012. There is no reference of hearing the present writ petitioner who was the writ petitioner in the WP(C) 469(AP)/2011 also. 8. From the above discussion it becomes clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of being heard. There is no reference of hearing the present writ petitioner who was the writ petitioner in the WP(C) 469(AP)/2011 also. 8. From the above discussion it becomes clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the order impugned visits the petitioner serious civil consequences and the same could not have been passed without complying with the principle of audi alterampartem. 9. In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India. (1969) 2 SCC 262 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus:- “The principles of natural justice have been designed to ensure fairness in action by the State and public bodies and, therefore, an important facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. One of the principles of natural justice i.e. the principle of audi alteram partem has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments handed down by it from time to time. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Commission of India: (1978) 1 SCC 405 , Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India: AIR 1981 SC 818 , Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel: (1985) 3 SCC 398 to cite a few. 10. In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No. 95 and 96, beautifully concertized law on the subject, which for facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:- “The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that Article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of state action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body men, not coming within the definition of "State" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially. 11. Now, averting to the factual matrix of the case in hand I find from the record that while disposing of the writ petition, being No. WP(C) 469(AP)/2011, filed by the petitioner on 18.01.2013, by setting aside and quashing the order dated 07.09.2011, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, by which he cancelled the LPC of the petitioner, this Court has directed that the respondent authorities may approach the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.08.2014, to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro for assessment of his land for acquisition of his Trans-Arunachal Highway which is passing through his land and the payment of the proper compensation thereof. Thereafter, he was expecting issuance of proper notice to him before proceeding any further with the cancellation of the LPC. But, to his utter surprise, he received a copy of an order on 26.11.2014, memo No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011 dated 30.09.2014. It is stated in the said order that on 11.08.2014, the representation filed by him for assessment of his land for Trans-Arunachal Highway was taken up along with the complaints filed by some persons for cancellation of the LPC of the petitioner and 13 other persons., and notices were issued to the petitioners in WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012 to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro on 11.08.2014, and after hearing him, the complainants and the Department officials, the LPC of the petitioner along with the 13 others were cancelled. 12. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner of the present petition was not a party in the WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012. As discussed herein above, there is nothing on the record to show that the Deputy Commissioner has heard the petitioner before cancellation of his LPC and rejection of his representation. 12. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner of the present petition was not a party in the WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012. As discussed herein above, there is nothing on the record to show that the Deputy Commissioner has heard the petitioner before cancellation of his LPC and rejection of his representation. It is the categorical version of the petitioner that he never received any notice from the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro and he never attended the said hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in his office. Though a copy of the impugned order appears to have been forwarded to the petitioner, yet, a bare perusal of the impugned order left this court unconvinced that the Deputy Commissioner has ever heard the petitioner before dismissing his petition. They could not furnish the copy of the Notice that allegedly issued to him while the petitioner applied for copy thereof. 13. Thus, it becomes clear that having not been heard the writ petitioner, before passing the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has violated the principle of natural justice i.e. ‘audi alteram pertam’ and resultantly, violated the right of the petitioner, as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and also violated the order of this court dated 18.01.2013, in WP(C) 469(AP)/2011, filed by the petitioner. Mr. D. Panging the ld. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out during hearing and I find substance in the same. Even, Mr. R.H. Nabam, the ld. Additional Advocate General also agreed that if the petitioner is not heard before passing the impugned order, then the matter may be remanded. Though, Mr. Nabam has pointed out that there is reference of the petitioner’s name in the impugned order and copy of the same was forwarded to him yet, as already discussed and held, there is reference of hearing the petitioners of writ petition No. WP(C) No.93-98(AP)/2012, in the said order. Not the petitioner of the case in hand. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra), the impugned order, No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro has to be quashed and set aside. 14. In the result this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order, No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro stands quashed and set aside. 14. In the result this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order, No.LMZ/T/Highway-1/2011, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro to dispose of the petition filed by the writ petitioner, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of judgment and order of this court, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and shall place the same before the Deputy Commissioner Ziro, within a week from today. The parties have to bear their own cost.