Also hea rd Ms. R. Bora v. Nos. 1

This writ petition was filed on 11.08.2004 and it is pending sin Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to vacate his premises and to pay him a dequate compensation both on account of rent and for the damage caused to his pr operty after proper assessment by the concerned authority. [7] ce then. [8] The Army authorities i.e. respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have filed their counter affidavit. In paragraph-4 of the said affidavit, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have stated that due to insurgency situation in Tirap and Changlang districts of Arunachal Pradesh, Army units were despatched to Deomali and the premise in que stion was temporarily occupied by the Army units, the details of which, as state d in the counter affidavit, are as under:- Name of Unit 7/8 GR 5 MADRAS 39 AR 7 RAJ RIF March 2001 to April 2003 March 2004 to Feb 2005 June 2003 to Nov 2003 May 2005 to Aug 2005 Period Occupied [9] Though the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have stated that the owner of the premi ses did not raise any claim by issuing no objection certificate, they have state d that the Armed forces are deployed in the State for maintenance of law and ord er duty for which purpose they were deployed at Deomali. In paragraph-8 of the c ounter affidavit, a statement has been made that the premises were vacated by 7 RAJ RIF on 12.09.2005. Stating that there are no records in the Army office rega rding any claim filed by the petitioner, the said respondents have stated that i f any compensation is due to the petitioner, he should approach the State Govern ment authorities for compensation. [10] The State of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent Nos. 2 & 6) has not filed co unter affidavit, though more than 8 years have passed since the filing of the wr it petition. [11] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his premises could not h ave been utilized in the manner in which it was done and that he is required to be adequately compensated for the use of his premises. Learned counsel for the p etitioner also submits that as the Army authorities have been in occupation of h is premises from March 2001 to September 2005, he should be paid rental compensa tion as well as compensation for damage of his premises for the aforesaid period . [12] Learned Central Govt. Counsel on the otherhand submits that the Armed fo rces were deployed for law and order duty at the request of the Arunachal Prades h Government and, therefore, Union of India or the Army authorities are not lia ble to pay any compensation to the petitioner. [13] Learned counsel for the State of Arunachal Pradesh submits that instruct ions have been received from the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap district. As per suc h instructions, there was no order for occupation of the petitioner’s premises b y the Army personnel from the District Administration and there is also no recor d to that effect in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap. [14] [15] The submissions made have been considered. Normally and as a general principle, claims for monetary compensation on account of rental demand for use of premises or for damage caused to the premis es should be left to be decided by the competent Civil Court as adjudication of such a claim may require adducing of evidence. But in the present case, from th e affidavit of the Army it is evident that the various Army units were in occupa tion of the petitioner’s premises for varying periods from March, 2001 to August 2005 and ultimately the premises were finally vacated on 12.09.2005. In such circumstances, it may not be justified to relegate the petitione [16] It is also the stand of the Army authorities that they were deployed at Deomali in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to conduct counter insurgency operatio n and for maintenance of law and order. Army personnel on their own cannot start such an operation without being requisitioned by the State Government. Moreover , this case is pending before this Court since August, 2004 and the State of Aru nachal Pradesh has also not filed any affidavit resisting the writ petition. [17] r to the forum of alternative remedy at this belated stage. [18] Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is of the co nsidered view that it would meet the ends of justice if the State Government loo ks into the matter and takes a decision after giving opportunity of hearing to t he petitioner. [19] Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing that the pet itioner shall appear before the respondent No. 6, Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Home Department within a period of 1(one) month from today a nd submit his claim before the said authority along with all the supporting docu ments. On receipt of such a claim, the said Secretary shall consider the matter and after enquiring into the matter and hearing all concerned, pass necessary or der(s) within a period of 3 (three) months thereafter in accordance with law. [20] Needless to say, if any grievance of the petitioner subsists, he will be at liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. [21] [22] Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.