LOLANG BAGANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Lolang Bagang, has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order of Mel proceeding No. DC/ICC/JUD/MISC/2015, dtd. 28/9/2015, 16/10/2015 and 3/11/2015; the Mel Decision in Case No. DC/ICC/JUD/MISC/2015, dtd. 10/11/2015; and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, dtd. 30/9/2016, vide No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08.

(2.) The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

(3.) Private respondent No. 4, Smti Techi Menia, also submitted her affidavit-in-opposition and raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition on 2 (two) grounds, viz. (i) alternate and efficacacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Sec. 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945, to prefer appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, but the petitioner has not preferred the same, and (ii) the issues involved in the petition are disputed question of fact which cannot be determined by the Writ Court. It is also stated that pursuant to an oral agreement between her and the petitioner, a Gift Deed, dtd. 17/2/2014, was executed and the petitioner has agreed to make payment on behalf of the respondent No. 4 of outstanding loan amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only to Smti Lusi Techi, Rs.6,00,000.00 (Rupees six lakhs) only to Smti Kyochi Bagang and Rs.3,50,000.00 (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) only to Smti Sangte Bagang, and on the basis of the said oral agreement, respondent No. 4, on good faith, has executed the Gift Deed, of land measuring 216 Sq. Mtrs. of the respondent No. 4, situated at Model Village Naharlagun, in favour of the petitioner. But, the petitioner, without performing his part of the contract of liquidating the liabilities of the respondent No. 4 obtained fresh LPC of the said land and thereafter, he was trying to sell the said land to one Shri Kumar Tajo by way of Gift Deed, dtd. 9/10/2015. Then, she has lodged the complaint, dtd. 18/8/2015, against the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex. It is also stated that on the basis of the complaint lodged by her, the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has forwarded and endorsed the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, for conducting Mel and accordingly, Mel proceedings were conducted on 16/10/2015, 03/11/2015 and 10/11/2015 as per Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945, and on 16/10/2015 and 10/11/2015, the petitioner has not attended the Mel proceeding. But, on 03/11/2015, he was present in the Mel proceeding where he had admitted before the Mel that he could not perform his part of agreement to liquidity the debt of the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, he does not have any right over the said land and accordingly, the Mel, conducted on 03/11/2015, where the petitioner remained absent and on the basis of petitioner's statement made on 16/10/2015, has taken the decision and restored the land to the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner did not object to the Mel proceeding that was conducted on 16/10/2015 and the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has never disposed of the application dtd. 2/11/2015 and 12/11/2015 of the respondent No. 4 in terms of Mel decision. It is to be noted here that averment so made by the respondent No.4 in her affidavit in opposition in respect of the Mel Proceeding is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the same.