Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/121/2025 of Smti Yorme Hiba Vs The State of AP and 4 Ors on 9 September 2026
GAHC040004352025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/121/2025 Smti Yorme Hiba Daughter of Late Tayor Hiba, permanent resident of Tado Gitu Village, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The
GAHC040004352025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/121/2025
Smti Yorme Hiba
Daughter of Late Tayor Hiba, permanent resident of Tado Gitu Village, PO and PS
Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 4 Ors
represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.
2:The Land Acquisition Collector/ Deputy Commissioner Age: 0
Occupation :
Tato
Shi Yomi District
Arunachal Pradesh.
3:The North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd Age: 0
Occupation :
represented by Executive Director (PA and BD)
NEEPCO Bhawan
RG Baruah Road
Guwahati 781005
4:Tapik Hiba
Age: 0
Occupation :
Son of Late Tami Hiba
permanent resident of Tado Gitu Village
Po and PS Tato
Shi Yomi District
Arunachal Pradesh.
5:Tapir Talo
Page 1 of 2
Age: 0
Occupation :
Son of Tadik Talar
permanent resident of Tado Gitu Village
Po and PS Tato
Shi Yomi District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Sr. Adv, Idak Bam,Bomchi Taipodia,Ligam Nochi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Binter Picha,Tao Tarin,1 P Tsering,Tabung Nonang,Signal Yirang,A Perme,Krishna Dubey,Lissing Perme BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 10.09.2026
Heard Shri I. Bam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Shri B. Picha, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 and Shri L. Perme, learned counsel for the private respondents. The cause of action for approaching this Court was non receipt of compensation of acquisition of land of the petitioner. It is contended that the private respondents who are the neighbours of the petitioner had received such compensation and the petitioner was left out. Shri Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted on instructions that in the meantime the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the private respondents and therefore, he would not like press this writ petition.
In view of the above aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is closed JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…