Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040003312026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/259/2023 Paknya Karga Age: 52 Occupation : Address:S/o Shri Tumpak Karga A Permanent Resident of Karga Village PO/PS Kamba District West Siang Arunachal Pradesh and currently residing at Quarter I-II DN College Road Vivek Vihar Itanagar PO/PS Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Represented through its Public Prosecutor. 2:Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Executive Magistrate Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Pakmi Karga Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Shri Tumpak Karga Page No.# 2/7 a Resident of Karga Village PO/PS Kamba District West Siang Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Muk Pertin Senior Advocate Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors.: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, respectively. Linked Case : IA(C)/65/2026 Pagmi Karga Son of Late Tumpak Karga, resident of Rupin, Kamba, PO and PS Kamba, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented through the PP of AP 2:The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Executive Magistrate Age: 0 Occupation : Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Paknya Karga Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Tumpak Karga a permanent resident of Karga Village PO and PS Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Preety Moyong, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), P P of AP Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 26.03.2026 Heard Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Lowang, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order, No. KMB/LK-16/2023/94, dated 16.05.2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 16.05.2023; the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), West Siang District, Kamba, Arunachal Pradesh, has directed all the family members to maintain status-quo and refrain from carrying out any construction activity in the suit land, without the consent of their family head, i.e., Shri Tumpak Karga. 4. Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023; by which the learned ADC, Kamba has directed all the family members to maintain status-quo and refrain from carrying out any construction activity in the suit land, without the consent of their family head, suffers from manifest illegality, on three main grounds. Firstly, she submits that in view of the enactment of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, and subsequent amendment in the year 2022; the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with land disputes, relating to title. Secondly, the said impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to Page No.# 4/7 the petitioner. And thirdly, while, the impugned order was passed, one appeal, being FAO No. 01/2026; was pending before this Court and that, the ADC, Kamba has no jurisdiction, when a matter relating to title is pending before the Civil Court in respect of the same plot of land. And under such circumstances, she submits that the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023; passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that too without drawing up the preliminary order, as required; fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and on such ground, she has contended to interfere with the same. 5. Per contra, Mr. N. Lowang and learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 Mr. Taffo, for the respondent 3 has supported the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023. Mr. Taffo submits that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are own brothers and with a view to grab the property, the petitioner herein has started the construction of a house for the residential purpose of his mother, who is residing with him. But, constructing such dwelling house over the disputed land, while the stay order was operating; is illegal and to vacate the said order, one interlocutory application, being I.A.(C) No. 65/2026; is also being filed by the respondent No. 3 herein. 5.1. It is the further submission of Mr. Taffo that if, the petitioner is allowed to continue with the construction work, then serious prejudice will be caused to the respondent No. 3. However, if, by setting aside the impugned order, liberty is granted to the parties to approach the village authority or the Civil Court, then he will have no objection. But, he submits that till filing of such application or suit before the village authority or the Civil Court, the status-quo order may be allowed to continue. 6. Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner, also submits that in the Page No.# 5/7 event of quashing the impugned order and allowing the parties to approach the appropriate authority, she has no objection in disposing of this matter. 7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also, the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023. 8. And it appears that there is substance in the submission of Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, when the impugned order was passed by the learned ADC, Kamba on 16.05.2023, one appeal, being FAO No. 01/2016, was pending before this Court, and the said appeal relates to the same plot of land. It is well settled in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427, that When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for Respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in Page No.# 6/7 the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code has been initiated and the property in dispute has been attached. We leave it open to either party to move the appellate Judge in the civil litigation for appropriate interim orders, if so advised, in the event of dispute relating to possession. 8.1. In the case of Mohd. Abid & Ors. vs. Ravi Naresh & Ors. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5444/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2022 in A 482 No.792/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction in which ex-parte ad- interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end. The inter- se rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court.” 9. Further, it appears that the said impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and though, notice was issued to the respondent No. 3, yet, there is no indication that the same Page No.# 7/7 was served upon the respondent No. 3. Thus, the right to be heard of the petitioner was violated. 10. Further, it appears from the enactment of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, and also, in view of the amendment Act of 2023; that the Executive Magistrate has no authority to deal with the matter relating to title of the land. Only the authorities provided under the said Act can entertain the matters relating to title. 11. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and also, as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition, by setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, to approach the appropriate authority, under appropriate provision of law, by filing application or suit. It is also provided that till filing of such application or suit, both the parties are directed to strictly maintain status-quo. 12. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 13. In view of the order passed in this writ petition, the connected interlocutory application, being I.A.(C) No. 65/2026, stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant