Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040015432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/225/2025 Kento Eshi (Ori) Age: 74 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Poken Eshi (Ori) resident of Keno Ori Market Siyom Colony Aalo PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 791001 VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Aalo West Siang District Page No.# 2/4 Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Commanding Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:4 JAK LI Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The District Land and Revenue Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Aalo under Land Management Department West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Defence Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Gumsen Lollen Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tagum Lollen Panya Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Secretary of the PDBRATBC (Panya Dego Bogdo Rigo Along Town Boundary Committee) Represented PDBRATBC. ------------ Advocate for : Tame Rimi Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 6 Ors: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, 4,5,6,7, respectively. Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 22.12.2025 ((B. Habung, J) Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5; Mr. K. Loya, learned CGC for the respondent No.4 & 6; and Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the connected appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C)/492(AP)/2022. 3. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in paragraph 5 of the delay condonation petition. 4. Upon considering the explanations provided in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Moreover, the respondents have raised no objection to the condonation of delay. 5. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 15 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. Page No.# 4/4 6. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant