Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006722024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/205/2024 Gombo Tamin and 6 Ors Son of Shri Obang Tamin, Village Mongku, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Tonong Darang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Taksing Darang Village Rangging PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 3: Bharat Lego Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Bisi Lego sector 2 mile area PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 4: Karik Osik Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Akom Osik Village Upper Bariskata PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 5: Kamin Tali Age: Occupation : Son of Taduk Tali Page No.# 2/5 Village Boying PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 6: June Tabing Age: Occupation : Son of Takar Tabing Village Mongku PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 7: Pangge Jamoh Age: Occupation : Son of Opang Jamoh Village Tigma Minbuk PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Department of Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The District Magistrate Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh 4:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 3/5 5:The Assistant Director Age: 0 Occupation : Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, K Tagyang,Nabam Talin Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Ninnong Ratan,SC (Land Management) -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the impugned order, dated 22.05.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, East Siang District, Pasighat, whereby and by which a notice was served upon the petitioners for immediate removal of the structure within 5 (five) days from the date of said order, and also directed to produce any land allotment order issued to the petitioners by the competent authority. The order further stated that failure to submit any valid document of proof, and failure to remove the illegal structure within the stipulated time, will be viewed as wilful disobedience and dwellers will be evicted without any further notice. 3. The petitioners contended that the land in question is under the possession of the petitioners since time immemorial and for which NOC have been issued to them by the various Departments viz-a-viz Urban Page No.# 4/5 Development and Housing and the Environment-cum-Forest and Climate Change. Based on the NOC issued to them, they have applied for issuance of Land Possession Certificate in the year, 2023. However, the District Magistrate, Pasighat, has issued the impugned vacation notice by quoting wrong provision of law and without giving any prior notice to the petitioners. Hence, this petition for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order. 4. Mr. Y. Riram, learned Govt. Advocate while conceding the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the impugned vacation notice was wrongly issued against the petitioners. He further submits that earlier on receipt of report from the sources, that some unknown person has illegally encroached at SIB land, Gumin Nagar, (2 mile, area) at Pasighat, an executive order was passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, subsequently, the impugned vacation notice dated 22.05.2024, was wrongly issued under Section 134 Cr.P.C. which otherwise is the provision regarding the service or notification of order. In that view of the matter, he fairly submits that the said vacation notice wrongly issued under section 134 Cr.P.C. may be set aside and quashed with a direction to the respondent authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of law. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned government counsel that the impugned order was wrongly issued under wrong provision of law; this Court, without going into the merit of the case, is of the considered opinion that the impugned vacation notice is liable to be set aside and quashed. Page No.# 5/5 6. Accordingly, for the reason stated above, the impugned vacation notice under Memo No. J-4303/2023-24 dated 22.05.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Pasighat is hereby set aside and quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant