IA(C)/211/2026 of Tageng Padoh Vs Tabang Riyang and 4 Ors on 14 September 2026

GAHC040015362026

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/211/2026 Tageng Padoh Son of Late Tanyang Padoh, Kaying Town, PO and PS Kaying, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

VERSUS Tabang Riyang and 4 Ors Son of Takut Riyang, Kaying Village, PO and PS Kaying, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Boleng. 5:The Officer in Charge Age: 0

Occupation : Kaying Police Station Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Tabing,Bebeng Siboh,Aso Dalbong Advocate for the Respondent : Rage Koyu, GA (AP) Linked Case : WP(C)/556/2025 Tabang Riyang Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Takut Riyang resident of Kaying Village PO and PS Kaying Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary to the Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Boleng. 4:The Officer in Charge Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Police Station Kaying

Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Taba Tagum Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 3 Ors: Advocate , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE (ORDER) 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Ado, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner and Ms. R. Basar, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. This application has been filed seeking impleadment of the applicant in the connected writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 556/2025 as respondent No. 5.

3. The opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner, in the connected writ petition, claims rights over land measuring 10,648.80 sq. metres situated at Kaying, out of which an area measuring 8,548.80 sq. metres is stated to have been allotted to the Police Department vide allotment order dated 19.03.1987, and has challenged the said allotment seeking either restoration of the said land or acquisition thereof in accordance with law upon payment of compensation to him. The writ petitioner has also challenged the preliminary notification dated 25.01.2005 and the final notification dated 04.08.2005 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (now repealed), declaring the Kaying Township area, including the land claimed by him.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, out of the land measuring 8,548.80 sq. metres claimed by the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner, an area measuring approximately 2,000 sq. metres was the land of the father of the applicant, which was donated by him to the Government in the year 1970s for establishment of the Circle Headquarters. It is submitted that, in recognition of such donation, the applicant has subsequently been allotted a plot of land measuring 450 sq. metres, which forms part of the area claimed by the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner in the connected writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant is an interested and necessary party, as any order that may be passed in the connected writ petition in respect of the land claimed by the writ petitioner may prejudice the interest of the applicant, unless he is impleaded and afforded an opportunity of being heard.

5. Having considered the materials placed on record and the fact that the applicant has been allotted a plot of land, which falls within the area claimed by the opposite party No. 1/writ petitioner, this Court is of the view that the applicant is a necessary party for effective and appropriate adjudication of the issues arising in the connected writ petition.

6. In view of the above and the prayer for impleadment not being objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, the present interlocutory application is allowed.

7. Accordingly, the applicant, namely, “Shri Tageng Padoh, S/o Late Tanyang Padoh, resident of Kaying Town, P.O./P.S. Kaying, District Siang, Arunachal Pradesh”, is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 5 in W.P.(C) No. 556/2025.

8. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant