YANU NALO Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Das. learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.N. Saikia. learned Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) This is an appeal against the JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 9.5.97 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 992/97.

(3.) The facts, briefly, are that on 10.2.97 the appellant submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner. Upper Subansiri District. Daporijo. Government of Arunachal Pradesh stating therein that a plot of land has been in her occupation since mid 70s and that strong bamboos had been grown all around the land and orange tree, pears trees; pineapple plantation and banana trees had also been grown on the said land. In the said application dated 10.2.97 the appellant further stated mat her father and other family members are residing on the land and that they are bonafide natives of Upper Subansiri District and have equal rights to own land for residential and other purposes. In the said application the appellant made a request to the Deputy Commissioner to sympathize the appellant and her family members and grant allotment of the land. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner. Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo issued a memorandum dated 18.2.97 stating therein that the appellant had been in unauthorised occupation of the land measuring 4404 sq. Mtrs. (1.09) Acres) near SIB Complex and that the Deputy Commissioner proposed to resume the land for construction of buildings for District Institute of Education & Training. Since the appellant had asked for regularisation of the plot in her name on the ground that the plot had been under her occupation for the last 22 years, she was directed by the said memorandum dated 18.2.97 to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,98,092.00 for regularisation of the said plot in terms of Government order No. LR-47/84 dated 25.10.94. It was further stated in the said memorandum dated 18.2.97 that if the amount was not deposited within the time stipulated in the said memorandum and the manner specified therein, only 1,000 Sq. Mtrs. would be considered for regularisation on payment of penalty at the prescribed rate and their rest of the area would be resumed for Government construction. Aggrieved by the said memorandum dated 18.2.97, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing Civil Rule No. 992/97 under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside the said memorandum dated 18.2.97 and for a direction to the respondents to allot and/or regularise the said plot of land measuring 4404 Sq. Mtrs. possessed by the appellant near SIB Complex at Daporijo, Arunachal Pradesh. By the impugned JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 9.5.97 the learned Single Judge declined to decide anything with regard to the matter and left it open to the authority to decide the matter in accordance with law by considering all aspects of the matter and further observed that the appellant may make a representation before the authority. In the said JUDGMENT & ORDER, however, it was made clear that the authority will have the right to resume the land and/or ask the appellant to vacate the land, if necessity arises. Aggrieved by the said JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 9.5.97 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 992/97, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal.