JUDGMENT & ORDER : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order No. TKG/JUD-02/2023-24, dated 23.04.2025; issued by the Circle Officer, Taksing; whereby, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division, was directed to demolish the old Circle Office building and construct a permanent RCC building for the Circle Office, in the private land of the petitioner; and the petitioner has also prayed for issuing direction not to conduct verification and demarcation of land for development of new Circle Headquarter, in terms of the minutes of the meeting, dated 05.03.2025 and 05.05.2025; singed by the Circle Officer, Taksing. Background facts :- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under - “The petitioner herein has inherited a vast parcel of land at Taksing, and during the year 2001, the respondent authorities had approached the petitioner for lending some portion of his private land, for the purpose of establishment of Circle Office at Taksing, on temporary basis; and on agreement with the petitioner, a wooden type building for the Circle Office, Taksing, was constructed. The portion of land, where the Circle Office in presently situated, was neither acquired by the government nor donated to the government by the petitioner and the same is apparent from the minutes of meeting, dated 05.03.2025 and 05.05.2025. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Taksing, vide order, dated 23.04.2025, in most illegal and arbitrary manner, had passed an order, directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division, for dismantling the old Circle Office building and constructing a new permanent building upon the same plot of land, which originally belongs to the petitioner. Then, being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed one representation on 28.04.2025, raising objection for the proposed construction work of construction of a new permanent Circle Office building; as the land where the new building is said to be constructed, is the ancestral land of the petitioner and the same has neither been acquired by the respondent authorities nor been donated by the petitioner for such developmental works.” 4. The respondent Nos. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, a stand has been taken that on the particular land, where construction of Circle Officer’s Office building is taking place; there is no such documentary evidence of ownership from the side of the petitioner, to adduce before this Court as well as before the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri district, Daporijo; and that the Circle Office, Taksing, was established in the year 1959, as per the records and the land, where the construction of the present Circle Office is going on, is a vacant land and it was voluntarily earmarked by the public of the Tasking Circle, to construct the Circle Office at Taksing; and moreover, from the year 1959 till 2025, the petitioner never made any claim regarding acquisition of land. If the land really belongs to him, then why he could have raised the objection much earlier, not after 65 years. 4.1 It has further been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent authorities had conducted a meeting with the public regarding further free and voluntary donation of land, as the administration requires more land for establishment of Government infrastructure; as the area is very sensitive and it is very proximate to the Mac Mohan border. 4.2 The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have further stated that the petitioner is jealous of awarding the work of Construction of Circle Office and his claim is tainted with ulterior motive i.e. to hinder the development work carried out by the State and there is no document to authenticate the claim of the petitioner; and also, no complaint was filed by the petitioner for the last 65 years. And under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 5. The petitioner has filed his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, denying the statements and averments made by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the affidavit-in-opposition. He has reiterated his contention that the Circle Office was established over his plot of land, in the year 2001 and he had lent some of the portion of his private land on temporary basis and on agreement of the same, a wooden type building for the Circle Office was constructed and the said plot of land is neither acquired nor donated by him. And he also enclosed a Certificate, issued by the Head Gaon Bura, Taksing, wherein, it is stated that the land in question belongs to him. 6. It is to be noted here that the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, has also filed an additional affidavit, bringing on record one letter, dated 06.05.2025; and another letter written by the Gaon Bura, Taksing Circle, being Annexure I & II; and he states that in view of the letter, dated 06.05.2025, of Tabi Chader, who is the cousin brother of the petitioner; the land in question, i.e., the land where the Circle Office is situated, is not a private land solely belonging to the petitioner, as claimed by him and that, the land was donated by their grandfather, Late Mising Chader, to the Government. It is further stated that the petitioner, in his affidavit-in-reply has enclosed one certificate issued by the Gaon Bura of Taksing Circle, declaring that the land, where the Circle Office is situated, belongs to the petitioner. But, subsequently, the Gaon Bura had withdrawn the letter, on the ground that he was misinformed and misguided by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the plot of land, where the present Circle Office is situated and the said plot of land was given by the petitioner, in the year 2001, for construction of Circle Office and accordingly, a wooden type building for functioning of the Circle Office was constructed; and that, without acquiring the land of the petitioner, the respondent authorities are trying to dismantle the old building and construct a permanent building there. 7.1 It is the further submission of Mr. Kamduk that the petitioner has donated some other portions of the land to the State respondents for construction of stadium and for other purposes and now, he has very little plot of land left with him and if, a permanent office is constructed over his plot of land, without acquiring the same; it would cause serious hardship to him. 7.2 Mr. 7.2 Mr. Kamduk, by referring to the land holding system in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that in Arunachal Pradesh, the land is private land or community land, and the Government acquires the same from the private person or from the community; and the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order and also, by the minutes of the meeting, by which, the Circle Officer wanted to demarcate the plot of land and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition. 8. Per contra, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition. She submits that the petitioner has failed to show any document to establish that the land, where the Circle Office is presently situated, belongs to him; and that the petitioner has obtained one NOC from the Gaonbura, but, the same has subsequently been cancelled. 8.1 Referring to the additional affidavit filed by the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri district, Daporijo; she submits that the petitioner has been falsely claiming as the owner of the said plot of land and one, Shri Pinju Chader, the Gaonbura of Taksing Circle has given NOC and the same was withdrawn vide letter dated, 27.01.2026; and that the land in question, where the Circle Officer is presently situated is not a private land, solely belonging to the petitioner, as claimed by him and the said plot of land was donated by their grandfather, Late Mising Chader; to the Government and the letter, which is annexed with additional affidavit as ‘Annexure No. I’, dated 06.05.2025; written by one Shri Tabi Chader, who happens to be the cousin brother of the petitioner; clearly indicates that their grandfather, Late Mising Chader, has donated the same and that, there is no merit in this petition and therefore, she has contended to dismiss the same. 8.2 In support of her submission, she has also referred to a decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Shri Ezekiel Tayang Vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh , reported in 2024 Supreme (Gau) 919 wherein, in paragraph No. 26, it is stated as under – “ 26. 8.2 In support of her submission, she has also referred to a decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Shri Ezekiel Tayang Vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh , reported in 2024 Supreme (Gau) 919 wherein, in paragraph No. 26, it is stated as under – “ 26. The petitioners have failed to establish their ownership and title over any specific area of land except bald assertion that their lands have been occupied by the Government by force and no acquisition proceeding has been followed before taking over the land. As noted above, since the area of 152.63 acres have been duly donated by the people of area, question of acquisition would not arise. One could have understood, if the private land of the petitioners are taken without due process of law. In the considered view of this Court, in the State like Arunachal Pradesh, when the lands were donated to the Government for establishment of Headquarters and other Government institutions and offices, no one should be allowed to claim any right over the donated land by way of vague claims without their being any basis, else it will create a chaos in the State as the maximum of the land where Headquarters, towns and other Government establishment have been established are all on the basis of the donation of land by the people of the area under peculiar situation at the relevant point of time, as the State was under nascent stage.” 9 . Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the decision, referred to by Ms. Ete, learned Senior Government Advocate, for the State respondent. 10. It appears that the land, over which, the present Circle Office of Taksing is situated; is claimed by the petitioner and also, by the State respondents. While the petitioner has claimed that the Circle Office was constructed in the year 2001, over the present plot of land, which was lent by him; the State respondents have taken a stand that the said Circle Office was constructed at Taksing, in the year 1959. However, none of the parties could adduce any supporting documents, in support of their contentions regarding the date of establishment of the Circle Office at Taksing. 11. However, none of the parties could adduce any supporting documents, in support of their contentions regarding the date of establishment of the Circle Office at Taksing. 11. Nevertheless, the Circle Office is already there; be it from the year 1959, or from the year 2001. Though, the petitioner herein has taken a stand that he had lent the said portion of land for establishment of Circle Office, yet, he also could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the same. Even if it is assumed that the Circle Office was established in the year 2001, since then, more than 25 years have elapsed till date. But, the dispute arose between them, when the State respondents had proposed to construct a permanent building there. And it appears from the affidavit filed by the State respondents that the work of construction of the Circle Office building was allotted to some other person, instead of the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has raised the present claim. 12. On the other hand, the additional affidavit filed by the District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer, Upper Subansiri district, Daporijo, indicates that one Tabi Chader, has written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, stating that the said parcel of land was donated by their forefather for establishment of the Circle Office and that the petitioner has obtained one NOC from the Gaonbura, but the same was subsequently withdrawn and as such, the petitioner has no document to claim any right over the said plot of land. It also appears that the land was not a private land, solely belonging to the petitioner and one Late Mising Chader, had donated the same to the Government. 13. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Taksing circle is situated near the international border of India and China, and it has immense importance; not only from security point of view, but also, from the development point of view; as the development schemes of the Government are always carried out through the officers and offices, working in the grassroot level. 14. This Court has also taken note of the observation made by a Co-ordinate Bench by this Court, in the case of Shri Ezekiel Tayang (supra). 14. This Court has also taken note of the observation made by a Co-ordinate Bench by this Court, in the case of Shri Ezekiel Tayang (supra). Thus, considering the facts and circumstances on the record and also, in view of absence of any documentary proof that the petitioner has lent the present parcel of land, where the Circle Office is situated; this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim over the said plot of land. Instead from the letter of Tabi Chader, written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, and also from the affidavit of District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer, Upper Subansiri district, Daporijo reveals that the said parcel of land was donated by the forefather of the Tabi Chader and of the petitioner, namely, Late Mising Chader, for establishment of the Circle Office. Further it appears that the NOC obtained by the petitioner from the Gaonburah, was subsequently withdrawn. It also appears that the land was not a private land, solely belonging to the petitioner. 15. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition, by directing the respondent authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of the representation filed by him on 28.04.2025, and to ascertain the veracity of his claim and only thereafter, to proceed with the construction of the Circle Office in accordance with law. And if, during the course of verification, it is found that the land in question belongs to the petitioner, then the State respondents have to acquire the same in accordance with law and only thereafter, the State can proceed with the construction work. 16. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.