Gauhati High Court
IA(C)/31/2026 of Takuso Mimi and 9 Ors Vs The State of AP and 4 Ors on 24 August 2026
GAHC040000942026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/31/2026 Takuso Mimi and 9 Ors Son of Late Akepi Mimi, permanent resident of New Anaya Village, PO Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ekome
GAHC040000942026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(C)/31/2026
Takuso Mimi and 9 Ors
Son of Late Akepi Mimi, permanent resident of New Anaya Village, PO Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh.
2: Ekome Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late S Mimi
permanent resident of Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
3: Tusu Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
4: Lakhu Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late U Mimi
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
5: Gora Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
6: Chimbu Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late K Mimi
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
7: Smti Lanu Meto
Age:
Occupation :
Wife of E Meto
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
8: Epi Meto
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late K Meto
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
9: Abang Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Late P Mimi
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh.
10: Sikku Mimi
Age:
Occupation :
Son of Shri P Mimi
permanent resident of New Anaya Village
PO Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh
VERSUS
The State of AP and 4 Ors
represented by the Secretary, Department of Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar 2:The Director Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Land Management
Govt of AP
PO Itanagar
Arunachal Pradesh
3:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Dibang Valley District
Anini
Arunachal Pradesh
4:The Union of India
Age: 0
Occupation :
through the Secretary (Power)
New Delhi
5:The Executive Director
Age: 0
Occupation :
Dibang Multi Purpose
National Hydro Power Corporation Ltd
Lower Dibang Valley District
Roing
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mitem Ratan, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
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 : 25-08-2026 (K. Ete, J) Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms. L. Keche, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DySGI, for respondent No. 4.
2. The Office Note dated 24.08.2026 reflects that the A/D card in respect of respondent No. 5 has been received back after due service of notice.
3. Accordingly, service upon respondent No. 5 is deemed to be completed.
4. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 42 (forty-two) days' delay in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 148/2023.
5. Perused the grounds stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application explaining the delay in filing the connected writ appeal.
6. Upon perusal of the grounds stated therein, we are satisfied that the applicants have shown sufficient cause for not preferring the connected writ appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
7. Having considered above and the prayer not being objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents, the delay of 42 (forty-two) days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 148/2023, is hereby condoned.
8. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant