Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040002072022 2025:GAU-AP:792 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/79/2022 Shri Kago Nime, age about 52 years, Son of Kago Jarbo, Permanent Resident of Hija village, P.O/P.S. Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 8794164196 VERSUS 1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, Ziro. 3:The District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, Ziro. 4:Apatani Pensioner Welfare Association, represented by its Page No.# 2/5 President, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tari, H Gyati Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. G. Ete, GA (AP), Rajesh Sonar, Binny Nyaruce,R Taku,Rajesh Sonar,Dugmar Kamduk,SC(Land Management),Duyu Laji,Tapi Omo,K Kozing,Rei Tapa,Elina Perme Date of Hearing& Judgment : 26.06.2025 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. Sonar learned counsel for the respondent No.4. None appears for the respondent No.3. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the provisional land allotment order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, whereby a plot of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs is provisionally allotted to the Apatani Pensioner Welfare Association, the respondent No.4 herein, for construction of their office building at Ziro Putu area, Old Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The petitioner claims that he has a plot of land measuring 1720.70 sq.mtrs. at Kundo area (Kudung Barang), Ziro in the District of Lower Page No.# 3/5 Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, which has been inherited from his forefathers. A Land Possession Certificate dated 20.08.2009 was issued in his favour. However, the same was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate, the petitioner has filed the writ petition, being WP(C)456(AP)2015. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that vide order dated 08.10.2015, this Court has passed an interim order, whereby it has been provided that cancellation of the LPC should not be the basis for eviction of certificate holder. It is contended that despite the pendency of the above writ petition and the interim order, a portion of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs. has been provisionally allotted to the private respondent No.4 for establishment of their office by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, vide provisional Land Allotment No.LMZ/PWA/2022/809-812 DATED 14.02.2022, without any notice to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when this Court has passed an interim order to the effect that the cancellation of the LPC should not be the basis for eviction of the certificate holder, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro ought not have issued the provisional allotment order in favour of the respondent No.4 for construction of office building, inasmuch as if the provisional allotment order is allowed to stand, the petitioner will be evicted from the land. Therefore, the impugned provisional allotment order dated 14.02.2022 may be set aside and quashed. Page No.# 4/5 6. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 have submitted that the land claimed by the petitioner is at Kundo area, Ziro, whereas the provisional land allotment order issued to the respondent No.4 is at Old Ziro Putu, which does not fall within the Kundo area. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against such allotment. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 8. The case projected by the petitioner is that he has a private land at Kundo area, Ziro, which he inherited from his forefathers, for which a Land Possession Certificate was issued in his favour. However, same was cancelled, which has been put to challenge in WP(C)456(AP)2015. The allotment of a plot of land measuring 337.50 sq.mtrs. in favour of the respondent No.4 for construction of their office building on a portion of the land of the petitioner, which would result in his eviction, and would be in violation of the order of this Court dated 08.10.2015, passed in the aforementioned writ petition. 9. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, there is no doubt that an interim order has been passed by this Court on 08.10.2015, in WP(C)456(AP)2015 to the effect that the cancellation of the LPC should not be the basis for eviction of the petitioner. However, it appears that the provisional land allotment order dated 14.02.2022 issued in favour of the respondent No.4 is at Ziro Putu, Old Ziro, whereas the land claimed by the petitioner appears to be at Kundo area, Ziro, which is different and distinct plot. Page No.# 5/5 10. This Court has disposed of the writ petition, WP(C)456(AP)2015, with regard to the cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate in respect of the land claimed by the petitioner at Kundo area, Ziro, on 26.06.2025, by setting aside the cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice and the respondents have been directed to re-consider the validity of the Land Possession Certificate afresh, by providing an opportunity to all the parties, including the petitioner and as such, interim order dated 08.10.2015 stands merged with the final order. 11. Having considered above, I am of the view that the provisional land allotment order dated 14.02.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, in favour of the private respondent No.4 appears to be on different plot at Ziro Putu and not at Kundo area, Ziro, this Court finds no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant