Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 560 (GAU)

Biki Talum S/o Shri Biki Tamo v. State of A. P.

2022-05-30

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 05.10.2020, whereby the Land Possession Certificate issued in his favour by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pania, Kra Daadi District was cancelled and it was declared that the said land be remain as community land of Biki clan of Gai-III village to avoid law and order problems. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father was in possession of a plot of land measuring 1,50,000 Sq. Mtrs. in the village Gai-III. The said property is ancestral property and since long back his forefathers are enjoying the same without any hindrance from any corner whatsoever. 3. Subsequently, as the petitioner was possessing and harvesting in one part of the said land, he applied Land Possession Certificate before the competent authority so as to develop the land as well as developed his business. Accordingly, on his application, the authority on the basis of the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurung Kumey District as well as from the Circle Officer, of Kurung Kumey district issued a Land Possession Certificate on 23.10.2013 under the signature of the Additional Deputy Commissioner with specific boundary and area. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner was enjoying the said plot of land, on the basis of certain complaint which the petitioner was not made aware of, the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pania, Kra Daadi District, cancelling the earlier Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that while cancelling such certificate, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and the order regarding cancellation of Land Possession Certificate was issued on the basis of certain complaint, which was also not furnished to the petitioner and the order reflects that there are certain allegations against the petitioner that he has encroached the land of the School and community land. However, he has not been given a chance to refute such allegation. Therefore, such cancellation order is violative of principle of natural justice and therefore, by way of the same, the petitioner’s right to livelihood and property as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as protected under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India has been violated. Therefore, such cancellation order is violative of principle of natural justice and therefore, by way of the same, the petitioner’s right to livelihood and property as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as protected under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India has been violated. Such course of action is not permitted under law, submits Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh submits that after a due enquiry, the District Administration came to a conclusion that earlier Land Possession Certificate was issued wrongly inasmuch after due verification they could learn that the land falls under the community land of the Biki clan since long and it is also effected the land allotted to Govt. Primary School building, Anganwadi Centre building, water tank etc. of Gai-III village. Therefore, as the petitioner has encroached the community land as well as land belonging to public property, the State authority is within its competence and jurisdiction to cancel the Land Possession Certificate which was issued without verification. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of any merit, submits Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an admitted position in the present case in hand that the Land Possession Certificate dated 23.10.2013 was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pania, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. This is also not in dispute that before cancelling such land allotment certificate by the order impugned, the respondent authority has not issued any notice or has not show caused the petitioner herein in respect of possession of the land. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that while issuing the impugned order, the principle of natural justice has been violated. 10. It is by now well settled that when an action is taken or proposed to be taken against a person, which affects the right of the person and results in adverse civil consequences, such person should be given an opportunity to show cause. This the fundamental of rule of principles of natural justice. 11. 10. It is by now well settled that when an action is taken or proposed to be taken against a person, which affects the right of the person and results in adverse civil consequences, such person should be given an opportunity to show cause. This the fundamental of rule of principles of natural justice. 11. In the case in hand, though Land Possession Certificate was cancelled on the allegation of certain complaints, the petitioner was not made aware of such complaint, no information/notice of such allegation were given to the petitioner asking him to put forward his position in relation to such allegation. Cancellation of Land Possession Certificate has taken away the petitioners right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also effects his right to livelyhood without adherence to due process of law i.e. without giving him any minimum opportunity of hearing, resulting in adverse civil consequences. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action of cancellation of Land Possession Certificate of the petitioner by way of the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 is violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is set aside and quashed. And the Land Possession Certificate of the petitioner is to be restored forthwith. 12. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent State to take action against the petitioner including cancellation of Land Possession Certificate by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if the State so desire and as per law. 13. With the aforesaid decision and observation, this writ petition is allowed. The parties to bear their own cost.