Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040005422025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/95/2025 Taget Taloh Son of Late Talung Taloh, Village Bilat, PO Bilat, PS Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented through Secretary (LM), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh East Siang District Pasighat. 3:The Circle Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Bilat Circle East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Raman Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Takom Taloh Village Bilat Biman Page No.# 2/8 PO Bilat PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Giant Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Takom Taloh Village Bilat Biman PO Bilat PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Tator Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Tapun Taloh Village Bilat Biman PO Bilat PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Tabong Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : (Ex-President Taloh Erang 2012) Son of Takit Taloh Village Bilat Biman PO Bilat PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Aso Dalbong, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Linked Case : WP(C)/53/2020 Taget Taloh Age: 52 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. talung Taloh village Bilat Page No.# 3/8 P.S Ruksin Dist. East Siang AP VERSUS The Deputy Commissioner and 5 Ors. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Circle Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Bilat Circle Dist. East Siang AP 4:Raman Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Takom Taloh Village Bilat-Bamin P.O. Bilat P.S Ruksin East Siang Dist. AP 5:Giant Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Takom Taloh Village Bilat-Bamin P.O. Bilat P.S Ruksin East Siang Dist. AP 6:Tator Taloh Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Tapun Taloh Village Bilat-Bamin P.O. Bilat P.S Ruksin East Siang Dist. AP 7:Tabong Taloh Page No.# 4/8 Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Ex-President Taloh Erang 2012 S/o Shri Takit Taloh village Bilat-Bamin East Siang Dist. AP ------------ Advocate for : Tabit Tapak Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The Deputy Commissioner and 5 Ors.: Advocate appearing for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 08-04-2025 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. In this interlocutory application, the prayer is for injuncting the respondents so as to maintain status quo ante over the disputed land. 3. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel has submitted that an interim order was passed in the connected writ petition on 11.02.2020 by which directions was issued for stay of the operation of the notice dated 30.01.2020, issued by the Circle Officer, Bilat which was stayed until further orders. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the house construction is carried out illegally by the respondent No. 5 over the disputed land. 4. On a perusal of the notice dated 30.01.2020, impugned in the connected writ petition, it appears that in connection of the Execution Case No. 01/2013, the persons named therein, including the applicant, were directed to appear in Page No.# 5/8 the execution proceedings. Therefore, the applicant, in the writ petition has merely challenged the notice dated 30.01.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Bilat. However, there is nothing in the writ petition to show that there is any declaration by any Court regarding the right, title and interest of the applicant over the land in respect of which this interlocutory application is filed. 5. In the connected writ petition, the applicant has annexed the Keba decision dated 10.05.2012, wherein, out of two decisions, one is to hold that the other party has sold the land illegally. Therefore, it is not very clear that what decision of the Keba was sought to be executed. The execution petition is not annexed in the writ petition. 6. On a query of the Court to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the order dated 11.02.2020, passed in WP(C) 53 (AP) of 2020 was communicated to the concerned Circle Officer, despite the question being asked for three times, the learned counsel for the applicant did not assist the Court in giving a straight answer. 7. The Court has requested the learned counsel to address the Court as to the direction which is contained in the Keba decision. However, he refuses to read the direction outlined in the English version of the Keba decision which is annexed at page No. 23 in this interlocutory applicant. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the Keba decision: “Today, on dated 10/5/2020 Shri Taget Taloh of Bamin village has given a written complaint saying that Shri Gobang Moyong of Mirem village has illegally Page No.# 6/8 sold his land within Talon area which falls within Bamin vilage area. So, the Kebang was held under the chairmanship of Shri Tayam Padung (GB) at Kebang hall of Bamin village. Before the Kebang. Taloh family has appraised that the Taloh area which falls within the village area has been illegally sold by Shri Gobang Moyong illegally saying that he has performed last ritual of Yompang. On that ground, he has no right to sale the land of Taloh. The complainant has further stated that complaint should have been initiated by the bamin Village itself earlier before the Kebang authority. Further, Shri Gabang Moyong who has also spoken before the Kebang that I have not sold that land because there is an existence of land belong to Moyong but I have sold the land because the land in dispute is within the Yompang Ngoung area and I have performed the last right of the Yompang and for that reason only I have sold the land. After hearing the complete statement of Taloh family and the Moyong family, the members present in the Kebang have decided the case with following directions; 1. The Kabeng has observed that Shri G. Moyong could not give any prove over his claims over the land. So, he has been directed to return the money to Siram family who has purchased the land forthwith and the act of Shri Gobang Moyong has been treated as mistake and unintentional out of ignorance. 2. The members present in the Kebang observed that by making a complaint, the Taloh family done good thing for preservation of the established custom and usage of the village. By. supporting the complaint, the Kebang has decided the case in favour of Taloh family.” 9. Therefore, on a perusal of the Keba decision, there are only two directions and none of the two directions contained any decision of the Keba, directing any party to the proceedings to vacate the land. Under such circumstances, we don’t Page No.# 7/8 find any reason for the Execution proceedings to have been registered. There is no decision at all for enforcement in the Keba decision dated 10.05.2012. Perhaps for this reason, the applicant has withheld the Keba decision dated 10.05.2020 and the execution application in the connected writ petition. 10. There is nothing on record to show that any right has been decided in favour of the applicant and/or otherwise he has asserted his right over the disputed land. Therefore, as the prayer for injunction/stay in an interlocutory application must necessarily be in aid to the primary relief claimed in the writ petition, but no corresponding right has either been decided or claimed by him, there is no prima facie case in favour of the applicant. 11. Therefore, when the applicant projects accrued of his rights from the Keba decision dated 10.05.2012, which does not declare his right, title and interest, no case is made out by the applicant for grant of any injunction/stay. Accordingly, as prima facie title could not be shown in favour of the applicant from the Keba decision dated 10.05.2012, the applicant has not able to make out a prima facie case for an interim order. Moreover, the balance of convenience for an interim order is not found in favour of the applicant. 12. Accordingly, in light of the discussion made hereinabove, the Court does not find that the applicant would suffer any irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 13. Accordingly, the Court does not find this interlocutory application to be fit and proper case to pass any interim order in favour of the applicant. 14. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed. Page No.# 8/8 15. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the applicant, when the connected writ petition would be heard. JUDGE Comparing Assistant