Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040018052023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/648/2023 Bokar Basar Son of Late Nguto Basar, a permanent resident of Gori village, PO Basar, Lepa Rada District, AP VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Others represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt of AP, Itanagar 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of AP Itanagar 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Basar Lepa Rada District AP 4:Tajen Kamum Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Tali Kamum resident of Pajo village Rede Put PO Basar Lepa Rada District AP 5:Bomli Basar Page No.# 2/5 Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Tobom Basar resident of Gori-III village PO Basar Lepa Rada District A Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Terji Kamchi,Geken Ingo,Tao Tarin,Gamken Bam,Jumgam Jini,Gegum Lollen Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 25.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel for the respondents. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 despite service of notice. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Lepa Rada District, to consider and dispose of his complaint against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Shri Tajen Kamum and Shri Bomli Basar, regarding the allotment of a plot of land measuring 235 Sq. Mtr. in their favour, which is stated to have remained pending since 04.07.2005, including his subsequent representation dated 21.03.2022. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had been in occupation of a plot of land measuring 585 Sq. Mtr. situated at Basar Market Line, near the Staff Canteen, Lepa Rada District. Pursuant to his application for allotment, a plot measuring 350 Sq. Mtr. was allotted to him vide order dated 15.05.1992. Page No.# 3/5 Thereafter, the petitioner applied for allotment of remaining 235 Sq. Mtr. of land by way of extension, which was left out despite his occupation of the total area of land measuring 585 Sq. Mtr. However, while the application was pending consideration, the respondent authorities allotted the said area measuring 235 Sq. Mtr. in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. The petitioner contends that he has filed a complaint on 04.07.2005 and thereafter, approached the authorities on several occasions seeking redressal of his grievance. Finally, he submitted another representation on 21.03.2022 and also issued a legal notice dated 17.05.2022. 5. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while strenuously attempted to urge that the petitioner is entitled to be allotted the remaining 235 Sq. Mtr. of land which is under his possession since 1981, finally submits that since the respondent authorities have failed to consider and dispose of the complaint of the petitioner, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's complaint. 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel, while referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents, submits that pursuant to the petitioner's complaint, a verification was conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner had already been allotted 350 Sq. Mtr. of land, whereas the remaining area of 235 Sq. Mtr. had been allotted in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. She submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay inasmuch as the complaint was submitted in the year 2005 and the allotment in favour of the private respondents was made on 15.11.2005. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioner's claim is barred by delay and laches. Page No.# 4/5 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land measuring 350 Sq. Mtr. in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were allotted a plot of land measuring 235 Sq. Mtr. in the year 2005. The land in question is admittedly Government land. It is within the exclusive domain of the competent State authorities to allot Government land in accordance with the applicable laws, rules and policies. Mere occupation of Government land does not confer any vested right upon an individual to seek allotment thereof; rather, such occupation, if unauthorized, may amount to encroachment. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has already been allotted a plot of land measuring 350 Sq. Mtr., while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been allotted the remaining area measuring 235 Sq. Mtr. in accordance with the applicable Act and Rules. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in either of the said allotments. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim allotment of the land already settled in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 merely on the basis of his alleged prior occupation thereof. That apart, the challenge also suffers from gross delay and laches inasmuch as the allotment in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was made in the year 2005 and at this distant point of time, it would not be appropriate to reopen the settled position relating to said allotments of the land. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to establish any legal right over the said plot of land measuring 235 Sq. Mtrs. so as to claim allotment thereof in his favour. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as he has failed to establish even a semblance Page No.# 5/5 of legal right over the land measuring 235 Sq. Mtr., which has already been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. However, it is observed that the Deputy Commissioner, Lepa Rada District, may consider and dispose of the petitioner's complaint, if still pending, as may be permissible under the law. 12. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant