Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040005472025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/162/2025 Tanom Siram Son of Late Gomon Siram, a permanent resident of Village Bilat Barmin, PO and PS Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer and Regional Head Age: 0 Occupation : Brahmaputra Board Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Division Brahmaputra Board Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tsering Gyatso, Tshering Yangzom Bhutia Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.1. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he has a plot of land near Remi River and over the said plot of land, the respondent authorities had given a contract vide work order dated 23.03.2023 to a particular contractor for the construction of “Anti-Erosion work along Remi river (protection work at Mirem village, Minglung village, and Remi village, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh)”. The petitioner alleges that without acquiring his land, the respondent authorities by using heavy machineries to mine stones and boulders belonging to the petitioner, had illegally carried out the said anti-erosion work. 3. In this respect, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 13.01.2025 and 04.04.2025 to the respondents stating that his boulders were used for the work without determining the value of the land. Apart from praying that no bill whatsoever should be paid to the contractor, the petitioner has also prayed for a proper land acquisition to be carried out and thereafter, compensation in respect of the said land to disburse in terms of the acquisition laws. 4. As those representations were not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that insofar direction for issuance of writ/mandamus to the appropriate Govt. to acquire the land cannot be issued, because no legal and fundamental right of the petitioner Page No.# 3/3 is infringed if his land is not acquired. 6. However, in the event any damage has allegedly been caused to the land allegedly belonging to the petitioner, his right to agitate against the respondent for damage caused and/or for restoration of his land as available , for which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for demonstrating his ownership over the said land claiming cost, damages, etc., if so advised. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands closed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant