Executive Cannot Enforce Domestic Violence Interim Orders; Gauhati High Court Quashes Arunachal Land Authority’s Cancellation Of Husband’s Possession Certificate For Lack Of Jurisdiction
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court at Itanagar Single Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury, quashed an order of the appellate authority in the State’s Land Management Department that had cancelled a land possession certificate issued in favour of another individual following a transfer by a husband, on the allegation that he had violated an interim protection order obtained by his estranged wife under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to examine or enforce the trial court’s order and that an administrative decision taken without such jurisdiction is a nullity.
The dispute arises from the cancellation of Land Possession Certificate dated 29.05.2017, issued in favour of Petitioner No.1. The petitioners challenged an appellate order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which cancelled this LPC. The parties are Petitioner No.1, in whose favour the LPC was issued following a registered deed of gift dated 07.10.2016 executed by Petitioner No.2; Petitioner No.2, the former husband of Respondent No.4; and Respondent No.4, who had an existing matrimonial dispute with Petitioner No.2.
The marriage between Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.4 was solemnized in 2008, and a domestic violence case commenced in 2015. On 10.06.2015, the Trial Court passed an ad-interim ex parte order directing Petitioner No.2 not to alienate the subject plot without court permission. The land was later transferred via gift to Petitioner No.1, based on which the new LPC was issued.
Respondent No.4 filed a complaint dated 24.10.2023 alleging that issuance of the 2017 LPC violated the Trial Court’s interim order. The Deputy Commissioner disposed of the complaint on 16.01.2024 without cancelling the LPC. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal, and the Secretary cancelled the LPC on 11.03.2024. The petitioners challenged this order under Article 226, contending lack of jurisdiction. The Court examined statutory provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000.
The Court recorded that the “genesis of the Order dated 16.01.2024” and the appellate order dated 11.03.2024 was the complaint alleging violation of the Trial Court’s interim protection order in DV Case No. 06/2015. The Court stated that the earlier writ directing the authority to consider the complaint “does not amount to an order to the authority to grant the relief sought for,” clarifying that a direction to consider requires independent examination.
The Court stated that the Trial Court’s order dated 10.06.2015 was passed under Sections 18 to 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, noting that the Magistrate has authority to pass protection orders, residence orders, monetary reliefs, custody orders, and compensation orders. The Court recorded: “Under Section 18(e)… the Trial Court can… prohibit the respondent from alienating any assets held or enjoyed jointly.” Further, the Court referred to Section 19 regarding residence orders and Section 23 permitting interim and ex parte orders.
It recorded that the Domestic Violence Act provides mechanisms to enforce such orders: “The Trial Court has also been provided with the jurisdiction under Section 27… to enforce its orders throughout India” and that “a breach of protection order… shall be an offence under the Act” under Section 31.
The Court observed that the respondent wife had not invoked these mechanisms before the Trial Court. It stated: “It was open for the respondent no.4 to allege breach of the interim protection order before the Trial Court itself.” It further recorded that “Had such a recourse been taken… the Trial Court… would have the authority and jurisdiction to enforce its own order.”
Critically, the Court recorded that the Secretary, Land Management Department, interpreted a judicial order without jurisdiction. The Court stated: “An order by an authority lacking the proper jurisdiction is considered void and a nullity in law having no legal effect whatsoever.” It also noted that the Secretary himself, through an official communication, admitted lack of jurisdiction.
The Court observed that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Secretary had authority to interpret or enforce a judicial protection order, recording that their orders were “unauthorized in law.” It recorded that both authorities wrongly presumed the writ direction as a “positive direction vesting them with the jurisdiction to decide the complaint by taking into account the Order dated 10.06.2015.”
The Court concluded that the appellate order dated 11.03.2024 was “non-est in law” due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held: “the impugned Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside and quashed as it has suffered from lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to that extent. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”
Regarding the pending domestic violence case, the Court stated: “If such is the position, it would be open for the respondent no. 4 to seek enforcement of the direction made in the Order dated 10.06.2015… before the Trial Court by following the procedure laid down for it.” The Court added: “If any such step is taken… the Trial Court is to consider it on merits and in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Panging, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Ratan, Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.D. Nair, Advocate; Mr. T. Torum, Advocate
Case Title: Smti. Likha Nap & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AP:1327
Case Number: WP(C) 151(AP)/2024
Bench: Justice Manish Choudhury
