Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040010182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/164/2025 The Union of India and 3 Ors through the Director General, ITBP, MHA, Govt of India, Block 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2: The Inspector General Age: Occupation : North East Frontier HQ ITBP MHA Govt of India Khatting Hill Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 3: The DIG SHQ Age: Occupation : Dibrugarh ITBP MHA Govt of India Mohanbari Dibrugarh District Assam 786012 4: The Commandant 9th Battalion Age: Occupation : ITBP Lohit District Tezu Arunachal Pradesh 79211 VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 The State of AP and 4 Ors through the Commissioner/ Secretary, Land Management Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 2:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh 792001 4:The Divisional Forest Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh 792001 5:Cholingso Kora Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Torelum Kora resident of Khoraliang PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : M Tanga, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Keprunda Mena BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 23.06.2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the applicants-Union of India. Also Page No.# 3/4 heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5/writ petitioner. 2. By filing this application, the applicants have prayed for an extension of 6(six) weeks’ time to comply with the judgment and order dated 20.05.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C)557(AP)2024. 3. Mr. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the applicants submits that this Court by the judgment and order dated 20.05.2025 has directed the applicants to determine the nature of requirement of possession by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) be done within a period of 1(one) month from the date of the order. As the matter involves a decision of the organization and the ITBP, and for the interest of nation, a policy decision has to be taken as to whether to acquire or not for permanent or temporary purposes, for which a considerable time would be required for taking such decision. Therefore, he seeks an extension of 6(six) weeks’ time for taking decision as directed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2025. 4. Ms. Basar, learned Government Advocate as well as Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5/writ petitioner, have submitted that they would not have any serious objection to such prayer for extension of time, considering that a policy decision may be required as to whether the land would be acquired by the authorities for the interest of nation. However, Mr. Saxena, learned counsel submits that further extension of time may not be granted by this Court. 5. Having considered that the respondent authorities, being the ITBP and the Page No.# 4/4 decision to retain or not the land which are already under the occupation, may take considerable time in view of the decision that would be taken by the organization, which may involve the Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India, and the prayer not being objected to by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, I deem it appropriate to grant 6(six) weeks’ time as sought for by the applicants to comply with the judgment and order dated 20.05.2025. Accordingly, it is granted. 6. The I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant