BHARATI LINGGI Vs. MIRI LINGGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is made under Section] 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations; 1945 against the order No. DR/LR-13(Pt- II)/26035-37, dated 30.11.99, passed by learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, Roing, holding, inter alia, that plot No. 682 of Roing township stood allotted by the Government in favour of the O.P., namely, Sri Miri Linggi and restraining the petitioner from taking any type of activities including construction of shed/building, etc.., thereon.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision petition are according to the petitioner, as follows: Deceased Atura Linggi, father of the present revision petitioner, had originally instituted this revision. Late Aturu Linggi has been in lawful possession of plot No. 682 of Roing township in Dibang Valley district, measuring about 20,824 square meters, on the same having been allotted to him by Govt. allotment No. 34 dated 28.12.81 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). In fact, the said deceased had purchased the said land from one Takum Gamling in consideration of Rs.8,000/- and two Mithuns and after purchase thereof, the said deceased had developed the same by clearing jungles and received, in course of time, allotment, thereof by allotment order dated 28.12.81, aforementioned and had been using the same for the residential accommodation by paying land revenue regularly in respect thereof till 1996. When the petitioner's father started construction over the said land, O.P., namely, Shri Miri Linggi, raised objection thereto on the ground that though the petitioner's father had been allowed to stay in a portion of the said land, the said portion of the land stood allotted to the O.P. The O.P. thus, laid of claim of ownership over the said land, though no notice had been served on the petitioner's father before making allotment thereof. The dispute, which so arose between the parties, was referred by the learned A.D.C, Roing to the local authority i.e. Kebang, for settlement when the matter was still pending before the Kebang, O.P. filed an application before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, Roing. On coming to know of the same, petitioner's father also submitted an application as reply to the application for settlement of the dispute made by the O.P. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received the impugned order, dated 13.11.99, aforementioned. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner's father approached this Court by way of this revision petition, which is, now, pursued by the petitioner.

(3.) I have carefully perused the revision petition and the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the O.P.