Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040007802025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/132/2025 The Deputy Commissioner Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Regso Pulu and 16 Ors permanent resident of Bhismaknagar, Koronu Circle, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Mitte Linggi Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Akene Linggi Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Ere Linggi Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Tunku Pulu Age: 0 Page No.# 2/5 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Ayu Misaya Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Anguo Pulu Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Pachu Pulu Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:Mangu Mimi Age: 0 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Tuku Pulu Age: 42 Occupation : permanent resident of Ezengo Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 11:Mitte Linggi Age: 49 Page No.# 3/5 Occupation : permanent resident of Ezengo Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 12:Ere Linggi Age: 50 Occupation : permanent resident of Ezengo Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 13:Ayu Misaya Age: 42 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 14:Angiju Pulu Age: 34 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 15:Mangu Mimi Age: 26 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 16:Pachu Pulu Age: 40 Occupation : permanent resident of Bhismaknagar Koronu Circle Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Page No.# 4/5 Arunachal Pradesh. 17:The National Hydro Power Corporation Limited Age: 0 Occupation : through the General Manager Dibang Multipurpose Project Roing Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : GA (AP), Advocate for the Respondent : Kamal Saxena, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 21.05.2025 Heard Shri S. Tapin, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri S. R. Rabha, learned counsel for the opposite party/ writ petitioner. By filing this application, a prayer has been made for extension of time to comply with the judgment and order dated 10.02.2025 passed in WP (C) 242 (AP) 2020. It is submitted that compliance of the order involves assessing and paying the compensation and, in this regard, steps have been taken in the right earnest and even thereafter, the matter could not be completed within the time frame and therefore, extension of time is prayed for. The aforesaid prayer is, however, strenuously opposed by Shri S. R. Page No.# 5/5 Rabha, learned counsel for the opposite parties by submitting that the present move is nothing but to circumvent the contempt proceeding which has in the meantime been initiated by the petitioners by filing contempt petition. He has also submitted that sufficient time was granted by this Court of 3 (three) months and therefore, the present prayer does not appear to be justified. Shri S. Tapin, learned counsel has, however, refuted the allegation that the present application has been filed only to circumvent the contempt petition and has submitted that the petition has been present bona fide. After considering the rival submissions and also the subject matter involved, this Court is of the opinion that the present prayer may not be held to be unreasonable. However, this Court is not inclined to grant a months’ time from today as in the meantime more than 3 (three) months has already elapsed. Accordingly, extension of time for compliance is granted by 3 (three) weeks. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant