Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/491/2024 of Smti Apili Tekseng and 15 Ors Vs The State of AP and 5 Ors on 1 September 2026
GAHC040014562024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/491/2024 Smti Apili Tekseng and 15 Ors Wife of Shri Takkin Tekseng, resident of Yingkiong, PO and PS Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:
GAHC040014562024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/491/2024
Smti Apili Tekseng and 15 Ors
Wife of Shri Takkin Tekseng, resident of Yingkiong, PO and PS Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
2: Dunggo Boli
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Dutit Boli
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
3: Tetek Litin
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Tani @ Mani Nitin
resident of Simong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
4: Bani Danggen
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Aham Danggen
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
5: Obang Litin
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late Alum Litin
legal heir of Shri Tagin Litin (Gran father) resident of Yingkiong PO and PS Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.
6: Yajong Litin
Age:
Occupation :
C/o Late Akom Litin
resident of Simong Village
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
7: Toto Lipir
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Atek Lipir
resident of Simong Village
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
8: Dondu Jijong
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Gali Jijong
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
9: Gegul Jiji
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Tonyik Jiji
resident of Gette Village
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
10: Yalut Jijong
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Gali Jijong
resident of Gette Village
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
11: Smti Api Kombo
Age:
Occupation :
Wife of Shri Iban Kombo
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
12: Smti Yaken Teng
Age:
Occupation :
(Legal heir) Wife of Late Bading Teng
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
13: Borbing Tekseng (Legal heir)
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Tajap Tekseng
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
14: Dungkeng Sitek
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Dumot Sitek
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
15: Totok Libang
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri Okom Libang
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
16: Yapang Nitik
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late G Nitik
resident of Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh
VERSUS
The State of AP and 5 Ors
represented by the Secretary/ Commissioner, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2:The Director of Land Management
Age: 0
Occupation :
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
3:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
4:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0
Occupation :
Yingkiong
PO and PS Yingkiong
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
5:The Director General Border Roads
Age: 0
Occupation :
Seema Sadak Bhawan
Ring Road Naraina
Delhi Cantt
New Delhi 110010
6:The Commanding Officer
Age: 0
Occupation :
761 BRTF at Yingkiong - Moying Road
Upper Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh 79100
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, K Gao,Honi Tana Tara,K Chotton,Penjom Siga,Oken Duggong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 02.09.2026
Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
2. As per the facts projected, a preliminary notification was issued on 27.05.2022 by the Land Management Department under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum land Regulation, 1947 (herein after the Act) for acquisition of land in Yingkiong-Moying BRO road (0.00 Km to 4.500 Km). The petitioners claim to have structures/assets/land on chainage No. 0.00 to 0.839. It is however, the case of the petitioners that such land was marked as Government land. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of such lands on the strength of allotment orders since several years and such allotment still exist and revenues paid. It is also the case of the petitioners that during the marking of the land as Government land, no opportunities were granted to the petitioners.
3. I have heard Ms N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners. I
have also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate and Shri K. Teri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri M. Kato, learned Dy.SGI.
4. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners.
5. Ms Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allotted land of the petitioners would be adversely affected by the action of the respondent authorities, which has simply marked such land as Government land. She has submitted that though on principle there may not be any objection on lawfully conducted acquisition proceeding, if the land allotted to the petitioners are described as Government land, the petitioners would also be deprived from their lawful entitlement in the form of compensation. She has however, submitted that there may not be even requirement of any such acquisition as sufficient space are available for construction of road for the project in question. The learned counsel has empathically submitted that there was no DPR for the project in question and in the process, by which, the land under their possession has been marked as Government land, no opportunity was granted. It is also contended that no verification exercise was undertaken before such impugned action was taken.
6. Per contra, Shri Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that though, as a matter of fact, the DPR was not readily available, the allotted lands of the petitioners would not be effected. He has submitted that the marking of the stretch as Government land only pertains to that which have been encroached by the petitioners over and above the land which were allotted to them. He has submitted that no allotted land of the petitioners are likely to be affected and even if, such lands are affected, due compensation would be granted to the affected parties in accordance with law. He has emphasised on the grave public interest involved with the project which pertains to the construction of the road.
7. In the rejoinder affidavit, Ms Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that though there may not be any serious objection to validly conducted acquisition proceedings, the aspect of a fair verification would be of paramount importance.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances and by balancing the equities, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be resolved in the following manners: (i) let there be a verification exercise involving the petitioners by giving them due notice so far as the project is concerned. (ii) If, in such verification exercise, it is found that any allotted land/structures of the petitioners are affected, it is needless to mention that the affected parties would be entitled to claim compensation strictly in accordance with law. (iii) There would be no restriction for the State to carry out eviction for encroached areas if found to be in the way of the project, which has to be done by giving due notice.
9. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2(two) months as the writ petition itself is pending since about last 2(two) years.
10. The writ petition accordingly, stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant +05'30'