Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040020602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/590/2025 Edison Kopak Son of Shri Tanga Kopak, presently residing at Gumin Nagar, Pasighat, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The EAC cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Dabang Gamo Page No.# 2/3 Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late T Gamo resident of 16th Mile Jairampur PO and PS Changlang District Changlang Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, Doge Lona,Abanso Gamre,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 12.12.2025 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner aggrieved with the Communication dated 29.05.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, is before this Court. He submits that as per the said Communication the respondent No. 5 lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner alleging illegal occupation of his allotted plot by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner came to the prima facie conclusion that the plot of land belongs to the respondent No. 5, until proven otherwise. Further, the Deputy Commissioner directed the parties to settle the issue by lawful means without resorting to violence. The learned counsel submits that in view of the said Communication, the respondent No. 5 is ascertained his right over the plot of land and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner clearly being in violation of principle of natural justice, the same should be interfered with by this Court. Upon perusal of the said Communication, it is seen that the Deputy Page No.# 3/3 Commissioner has only rendered a prima facie opinion or assumption that the plot of land belongs to the respondent No. 5, unless proven otherwise. The same by no means can be understood as a decision in favour of the respondent No. 5. The Communication also clearly provides that the parties are required to settle the matter by lawful means and therefore, under the circumstance, it is open for them to approach a competent Court of law to settle the dispute. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article – 226 cannot entertain a dispute of such nature since it would necessarily involve disputed question of fact. Such being the position, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the same stands be disposed of. The petitioner may approach the competent forum for mitigating his grievance, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant