WP(C)/297/2020 of TAMAT TAKOH Vs THE STATE OF AP on 8 September 2026

ORDER

09.09.2026 All these 3 writ petitions being connected and analogous, those have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The challenge is against a notification issued by the Land Management Department, Government of AP dated 19.09.2019 as per which, an area of land measuring 73.26 acres which has been described in the Schedule has been stated to have been voluntarily donated by the land owners and were to be utilized for the purpose of the establishment of the Sille-Oyan Circle Headquarter / Township. The said notification also states that the earlier notification dated 12.12.2016 stood superseded. The primary contention in challenging this notification is that there was no donation of the land in question which has been assumed by the authorities to the prejudice of the petitioners.

3. I have heard Shri TT Tara, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/297/2020 & WP(C)/273/2022 and Shri R. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri I. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/310/2020. I have also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate, AP and Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. Shri Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the notification dated 12.12.2016 is concerned, the same would show that a procedure was undertaken for the donated land in question which was restricted to an area of 4.6 acres. He has submitted that the area has been shown in the Schedule appended to the notification dated 12.12.2016. However, the impugned notification has been issued by inflating the area to 73.26 acres, which is beyond the area donated by the land owners. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings made in paragraph 33 inWP(C)/297/2020.

5. Endorsing the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/297/2020 & WP(C)/273/2022, Shri Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/310/2020 has submitted that he has never donated his land and the State authorities are taking forceful measures for evicting him from his own land. He has submitted that unless there is a voluntary donation by him, the State cannot assume that such land has been donated. He however submits that his land is beyond the area mentioned in the notification dated 12.12.2016.

6. Ms. Basar, learned Government Advocate has submitted that though initially the notification dated 12.12.2016 was issued, the same was superseded by the notification dated 19.09.2019, as per which the area in question which was voluntarily donated was 73.26 acres. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 in WP(C)/297/2020, learned State Counsel has submitted that such donation was made orally.

7. The learned State Counsel has also denied the aspect that though the petitioners have relied upon a preliminary notification allegedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District wherein the land donated has been stated to be 4.6 acres, the land under the notification dated 12.12.2016, which is not disputed, is much more than that and has been specifically mentioned in the schedule appended to the said notification.

8. Shri Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that he has no role but has endorsed the submissions made on behalf of the State.

9. The primary contention advanced by the petitioners is on the aspect of voluntary donation with regard to the land mentioned in the notification dated 19.09.2019. The land which has been stated to be voluntarily donated measures 73.26 acres. The said notification also supersedes the earlier notification dated 12.12.2016. A bare perusal of the earlier notification dated 12.12.2016 would show that the land which was voluntarily donated is of different plots measuring 7512 sq. mtrs., 1150 sq. mtrs., 29,299 sq. mtrs. and 6314.3 sq. mtrs. There is a clear and specific pleading by the petitioners in WP(C)/297/2020 in paragraph 33 that there was no voluntary donation of the land mentioned in the notification dated 19.09.2019. As mentioned above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have however conceded that so far as the land mentioned in the notification dated 12.12.2016 is concerned, they do not dispute to such voluntary donations.

10. The aforesaid averments being factual in nature, it is required to examine the response made by the State to such categorical averments made on behalf of the petitioners. The respondents in their affidavit filed on 19.06.2021 has not specifically dealt with the averments made in paragraph 33 of the writ petition. On the other hand, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition, an omnibus statement has been made in connection with a number of paragraphs. For ready reference, those are extracted hereinbelow: Paragraph 33 of WP(C)/297/2020 “33. That it is respectfully submits that the petitioners have objection with regards to the land measuring 44266. Sq. mtrs i.e 11 acres of land donated by the villagers for establishment of various government of offices. Nevertheless is against the arbitrarily and illegal action of the state respondents by the issuing notification dated 12.12.2016 whereby the additional land of 62 acres land which is under possession of the petitioners and others. Be that as it may, it is relevant to point out that by the illegal impugned notification 19.09.2019 the state respondents by its conduct itself is trying to acquire land illegally and by which whole villagers who have established themselves will be displace without any reasons. Therefore, this Honb'le Court may be pleased to direct to respondent authorities to restrain from taking any coercive action against the land owners in term of the impugned preliminary Notification dated 19.09.2019.” Paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition “5. That with reference to statements made in Para- 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the instant writ petition your humble deponent vehemently denies the statements made therein and further reiterates that the present petitioner are the illegal encroachers of

the Government possessed land by taking the advantage of the formal defect that the land is not Government notified land. That not only 4.6 acres of land has been donated but about more than 70 acres of land has been orally donated to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is in continuous possession of the same for more than 60 years. That in fact the notification dated 12/12/2016 was notified by misleading the innocent villagers of Oyan Village. Therefore the present preliminary notification of 2019 is notified by the Secretary (LM) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh superseding the previous notification of 2016. That, there is no any case in favour of the writ petitioners, but they are the illegal encroachers and they are liable to be evicted in due course of time as per law. Moreover, the preliminary notification of 2019 is yet to be considered and is at the stage of claims and objections by the aggrieved so called private land owners and as such no, any final notification has been issued yet. Hence this writ petition is not maintainable in the eye of law being filed prematurely before issuance of any final notification and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.”

11. Though a Writ Court is not a Court on facts, in the instant case, the aspect that there was no donation has not been specifically dealt with and the only contention advanced on behalf of the State is that there is an oral donation. In the considered opinion of this Court, oral donation in respect of a huge area pertaining to 73.26 acres cannot be recognized by law. As noted above, so far as the area connected with the notification dated 12.12.2016 is concerned, the same is not the aspect of the present challenge and therefore, there would be no embargo on the part of the State to go ahead with the said notification. However, so far as the notification dated 19.09.2019 is concerned, the same cannot be acted upon for lands which are beyond the areas mentioned in the notification dated 12.12.2016.

12. This Court has also noted that interim orders have been passed by this Court staying the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 as well as subsequent eviction orders. Ms. Basar, learned Government Advocate has also informed that pursuant to such interim orders, the eviction orders have been recalled.

13. Be that as it may and in view of the finding of this Court that the impugned notification/order dated 19.09.2019 is not sustainable, the land which are beyond the land covered by the notification dated 12.12.2016, which are in the possession of the petitioners, are not to be disturbed. The respondent authorities, however, would be at liberty to initiate appropriate land acquisition proceedings if the land is required for public purposes, which however has to be done strictly in accordance with law. The interim order passed earlier stands merged with this final order.

14. The writ petitions accordingly stand allowed, in the manner indicated above.

15. No order, as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant