JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Taking into consideration that the writ petition is of the year 2021 and also, in view of the subject matter and as also have agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. As per the facts projected in the petition, the petitioner who is an Extension Officer in the Social Welfare Department had occupied about 1200 Sq.Mtrs. of Government land. Subsequently, she had applied for allotment of the said land and on such application, the Circle Officer, P/Kessang, East Kameng District had passed an order dated 20.07.2005 granting provisional allotment of 1200 Sq. Mtrs. of land. It was, however, stated in the order that the same was done in anticipation of the approval from the Government. 3. On the strength of such allotment, the petitioner had constructed a Katcha house and thereafter, due to her service, she was transferred and posted in some other districts and in her absence, there was encroachment over the aforesaid land reducing the area to about 710 Sq. Mtrs. On noticing the same and to preserve the land, the petitioner had constructed a barbed wire fencing over the plot of land in the year 2013. However, when the said activity was going on, the respondent No.4 had raised a dispute by claiming ownership over the said plot of land. The petitioner had accordingly, filed a complaint before the authorities, in which, on 08.02.2018, the respondent No.4 was summoned by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Pakke-Kessang, East Kameng District. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 did not appear in the said proceeding and on the other hand, had lodged an FIR at the Seppa Police Station, which was registered as Seppa P.S. Case No.15/2018, under Sections 447/427/506/34 of the IPC. 4. The charge sheet was laid after the investigation. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, on examination of the materials, vide order of 05.02.2021 had discharged the petitioner in the criminal case registered as G.R Case No.15/2018. After such discharge, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District on 01.05.2021 informing him regarding the construction of a house. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, on examination of the materials, vide order of 05.02.2021 had discharged the petitioner in the criminal case registered as G.R Case No.15/2018. After such discharge, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District on 01.05.2021 informing him regarding the construction of a house. Almost at the same time, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.05.2021 by the Estate Officer, Pakke Kessang District directing her to stop the construction and remove the same within 7(seven) days, failing which the structure would be evicted by the District Administration at the cost of the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said notice was issued without any show cause notice or any opportunity afforded to her. The petitioner had accordingly, submitted a reply through her counsel on 09.06.2021. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021, another notice was issued to the petitioner to remove the construction. Accordingly, having no other alternative, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority. As the same appeal was not taken up for consideration, the petitioner had earlier filed WP(C)242 of 2021 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2021 with a direction for consideration of the appeal with a further observation that till such consideration, the impugned order would remain stayed. The aforesaid order of this Court dated 11.08.2021 was communicated by the petitioner to the appropriate authority and pursuant to the same, the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order dated 16.08.2021, whereby the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer to take corrective measures. However, the ADC-cum-Estate Officer had issued a communication dated 18.08.2021 declining to take any action by citing certain reasons. Subsequently, vide the order dated 20.08.2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was rejected. The petitioner has contended that such rejection was not preceded by any hearing or opportunity granted to the petitioner. 6. It is the aforesaid actions which are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 7. I have heard Shri J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and Shri K. Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4. 8. 6. It is the aforesaid actions which are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 7. I have heard Shri J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and Shri K. Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4. 8. Shri Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial order of the Estate Officer dated 07.05.2021 was itself in violation of Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 2003, (‘the Act of 2003’ for short), which envisages issuance of notice to show cause against the order of eviction. He has submitted that a bare perusal of the said order dated 07.05.2021 would reveal that no such show cause notice was issued prior to the impugned action, and therefore, the said order is void ab initio. Shri Jini, learned counsel further submits that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner on behalf of the respondent No.4 had culminated in an order of discharge dated 05.02.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore, it stands established that the petitioner has the right over the land in question, and the allegation of encroaching upon the land of the respondent No. 4 is without any basis. He has also submitted that the petitioner's attempt to get her grievance redressed by approaching the Appellate Authority had also initially did not bear any result as the appeal was not considered and the same was done only after the intervention of this Court vide the order dated 11.08.2021 passed in WP(C) 242(AP)2021. He has submitted that though the Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority, had initially passed an order dated 16.08.2021 by remanding the matter to take corrective measures, the Estate Officer had declined to take any action by citing trivial grounds. He has raised a serious objection to the manner by which the appeal has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2021, which was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was the appellant. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Section 12 of the aforesaid Act of 2003, which provides for an appeal and there is a requirement to give the aggrieved parties an opportunity of hearing and such appeal cannot be disposed of in a mechanical manner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Section 12 of the aforesaid Act of 2003, which provides for an appeal and there is a requirement to give the aggrieved parties an opportunity of hearing and such appeal cannot be disposed of in a mechanical manner. He has submitted that it is a basic principle of natural justice to provide an opportunity of hearing and in this case, there is an apparent violation of such principles. He accordingly, prays for interference with the impugned action. 10. Per contra, Shri Riram, learned State Counsel has submitted that the foundation of the case of the petitioner is erroneous, inasmuch as the order dated 20.07.2025, which is relied upon by the petitioner would not confer any right upon her. By referring to the said order passed by the Circle Officer, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the Circle Officer is not vested with the jurisdiction to grant allotment. He has also submitted that the Act in question, does not provide for provisional allotment, that too in anticipation of approval. He accordingly submits that no right of any nature was vested upon the petitioner over the aforesaid plot of land. He has therefore, submitted that the impugned orders have been rightly passed. On the aspect of requirement of a show cause notice as per the Act, the learned State Counsel has referred to Section 6 of the said Act, according to which the issuance of show cause notice is not mandatory. He has submitted that it is in the interest of justice, for which the impugned action has been taken. 11. As regards the disposal of the appeal vide the order 20.08.2021, the learned State Counsel has, however, fairly admitted that such disposal appears to have been done without giving an opportunity of hearing and therefore, at best, the matter can be remanded back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration by giving a scope of hearing to the affected parties. 12. Shri Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 while endorsing the contentions advanced by the learned State Counsel, has submitted that the land in question, has been duly allotted to the respondent No. 4, over which the petitioner has made unauthorized encroachment and it is in this context that the complaint was lodged by him. 12. Shri Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 while endorsing the contentions advanced by the learned State Counsel, has submitted that the land in question, has been duly allotted to the respondent No. 4, over which the petitioner has made unauthorized encroachment and it is in this context that the complaint was lodged by him. He has submitted that the orders of eviction of the petitioner and removal of structures are in accordance with law and in the interest of justice. 13. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 14. The State respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 26.05.2023 while Shri Loya, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition dated 07.08.2024. 15. The foundation of this case rests upon an order dated on 20.07.2025, passed by the Circle Officer, Pakke Kessang, East Kameng, whereby provisional allotment of the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner. While it has been stoutly argued on behalf of the State that there is no provision in the Act for granting provisional allotment in anticipation of approval, it is not a dispute that indeed, such an order was issued by the Circle Officer. Whether any right can be vested in an individual by such an order thus itself becomes doubtful. However, even if it is held that no right appears to have been vested by the said order, it is not in dispute that till 2013, the land was not only under the possession of the petitioner but she had also made barbed wire fencing over the said land. At this stage, the stand taken by the private respondent is also crucial. The private respondent No. 4 has claimed the land to be his own. If ownership of the land is claimed by the private respondent, which is also the claim of the petitioner, then the very application of the Act in question would be doubtful. As the name suggests, the Act of 2003 is for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premise. “Public premise” has been defined under Section 2(iv) of the Act of 2003, which reads as follows: “2(iv) “Public Premises” means any land or structure belonging to: (a) The State Government. As the name suggests, the Act of 2003 is for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premise. “Public premise” has been defined under Section 2(iv) of the Act of 2003, which reads as follows: “2(iv) “Public Premises” means any land or structure belonging to: (a) The State Government. (b) Any other Corporation or Public Sector undertakings owned or sponsored and controlled by the State government.” 16. Similarly, unauthorised occupation has been defined under Section 2(vii), which is extracted hereinbelow: “2(vii) “Unauthorized Occupation”, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.” 17. The issue regarding the requirement of giving a show cause notice and opportunity before evicting from public premise a person in unauthorized occupation is laid down in Section 4 as well as Section 6 of the Act of 2003. While Section 4 requires issuance of a notice to show cause against an order of eviction, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State Counsel has relied upon Section 6 of the Act, which provides for taking action without even issuing a show cause notice. In the opinion of this Court, Section 6 cannot be read in isolation and Section 4 has to be read along with the said provision. Though a person may be an unauthorized occupant as per the meaning of the Act, such unauthorized occupation can be removed only by issuing a prior notice before any order of eviction. However, in the facts of the present case, the said issue may not be relevant. This Court has already indicated that insofar as the land in question is concerned, the respondent No.4 has claimed ownership over the same land and accordingly, a complaint was lodged alleging encroachment of the land of the respondent No. 4 by the petitioner. 18. As already indicated above, on the other hand, the petitioner has claimed ownership of the plot of land on the strength of the order 20.07.2025. 18. As already indicated above, on the other hand, the petitioner has claimed ownership of the plot of land on the strength of the order 20.07.2025. Whether the aforesaid order 20.07.2025 would vest any right is questionable, however, it is not in doubt that the land in question is not a public premise and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there would be no application of the Act of 2003 in question. Therefore, the initiation of the proceeding under the Act vide impugned order dated 20.07.2025 is itself without any jurisdiction and therefore, is interfered with. Consequently, the orders passed on 07.05.2021, followed by the appellate order dated 20.08.2021 are set aside. 19. The setting aside of the aforesaid orders is only for the reasons indicated above, and the aspect of ownership of the rival parties is not the subject matter of this case and no opinion has been expressed in that regard. Consequently, either of the aggrieved parties can approach the appropriate forum of law for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession in accordance with law. 20. The writ petition accordingly, stands allowed and disposed of in the manner indicated above. 21. No order as to cost.