Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040004722023 2026:GAU-AP:838 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/12/2023 Sama Dodum S/o Lt. Taje Dodum, R/o Gohpur Tinali, Itanagar, PO/PS RK Mission, Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Contact No. 9436040600 VERSUS 1. The Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, PO & PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Itanagar Wildlife Division, G- Extension Road, G Sector, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh – 791110. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Advocate for the appellant : Mr. R Sonar,R Taku,N Singye,N Basar Advocate for the respondents : Ms. G. Ete, Addl SrGA Date of hearing & pronouncement of judgment :25.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of operative part of the judgment?: NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : YES JUDGMENT & ORDER[ORAL] (Kardak Ete, J.) Heard Mr. Rajesh Sonar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Goter Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. Page No.# 2/7 2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)215(AP)2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed. 3. The appellant had approached this Court being aggrieved by the letter dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby, the No Objection Certificate(NOC) sought for by him to undertake the earth cutting works at Lorr village, Itanagar(earlier known as Lorr Putung village), near Ganga Market, Itanagar, was rejected. 4. The projected case of the petitioner is that he has a private plot of land measuring 50,000 sq.mtrs. located at Lorr village, Itanagar, for which a Land Possession Certificate(LPC) was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, vide dated 10.12.2005. Having desirous of constructing an approach road to connect his plot of land at Lorr village, Itanagar, with the main road, the petitioner has sought for an No Objection Certificate(NOC) from the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, in terms of the relevant Notification. By the impugned letter dated 06.04.2021, the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, has denied issuance of the No Objection Certificate(NOC) as sought for by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that a representation addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, has been submitted by the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Itanagar Wildlife Division, Naharlagun, seeking cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005 issued to the petitioner stating that no ‘No Objection Certificate(NOC)’ was obtained from the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary authorities which is a clear violation of the provisions of the Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980. Page No.# 3/7 5. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned letter dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WP(c)215(AP)2021 being devoid of merit vide an order, dated 07.03.2023. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow,: “5. On perusal of the impugned letter, dated 06.04.2021, it appears that the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Itanagar Wildlife Division, Naharlagun, had written a letter, dated 23.03.2021, to the Deputy Commissioner, Yupia, for cancellation of the LPC, dated 10.12.2005, issued to the petitioner on the ground that the LPC, dated 10.12.2005, was issued to the petitioner without obtaining NOC from the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary authorities, which is a violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 6. A perusal of the impugned letter, dated 06.04.2021, itself indicates that a process has been initiated to cancel the LPC, dated 10.12.2005, issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Yupia, on the ground that NOC was not obtained from the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary authorities required under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1980, before issuing the LPC, dated 10.12.2005, to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, whether the petitioner would be entitled to possess the land measuring 50,000 Sqms, vide the LPC, dated 10.12.2005, itself has come under cloud. Even if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the possession of 50,000 Sqms of land, in terms of LPC, dated 10.12.2005, no construction of approach road as proposed by the petitioner can be permitted to be done as the same would pass through a Wildlife Sanctuary and Forest Area, within the meaning of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1980, respectively, as is found from the impugned letter, dated 06.04.2021, issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, no interference is called for to the impugned letter, dated 06.04.2021, issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Order no. CEO/ICC/DAD-2086/2020/7050-56. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.” 6. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the appellant, after submitting and taking several other grounds, has essentially confined to the submission that the appellant is aggrieved of the observation made at paragraph No. 7 of the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)215(AP)2021, Page No.# 4/7 wherein, it has been observed that whether the petitioner would be entitled to possess the land measuring 50,000 sq. mtrs., vide the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005, itself has come under cloud. Even if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the possession of 50,000 sq. mtrs. of land, in terms of the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005, no construction of approach road as proposed by the petitioner can be permitted to be done as the same would pass through a Wildlife Sanctuary and Forest Area, within the meaning of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, as well as the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, respectively, which, according to him, is purportedly based on the impugned letter, dated 06.04.2021, by the Chief Estate Officer, Itanagar. 7. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the appellant, further submits that the learned Single Judge could not have made the aforesaid observations, merely basing on the impugned letter dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Itanagar, which does not indicate that the land of the appellant falls within Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area. The learned counsel also submits that assuming that even if there is a complaint by the authorities of the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary, until the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005, validly issued in favour of the petitioner, is cancelled, no conclusion could have been drawn that the plot of the land of the petitioner falls under Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents, submits that the plot of land which the appellant claims to be under his possession, by virtue of the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005, falls under Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate further submits that the Land Possession Certificates dated 10.12.2005 issued for the land to the individuals Page No.# 5/7 which falls under Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area, have already been declared void ab initio by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region, Itanagar, vide order, dated 07.12.2021. Therefore, she submits that the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005 wrongly issued to the petitioner, also stands cancelled on having been declared void ab initio. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials made available on record including the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)215(AP)2021. 10. As recorded hereinabove, the impugned letter dated 06.04.2021 issued to the petitioner by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, denying the issuance of the No Objection Certificate(NOC) for construction of an approach road to connect his plot of land at Lorr village, Itanagar, is on the ground that the authorities of the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary have filed an objection before the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, seeking cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005 issued to the petitioner which reflects that the process for cancellation of the Land Possession Certificate(LPC), in question, on the ground of non-obtaining of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the authorities of the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary in violation of the provisions of Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest(Conservation)Act, 1980, is pending consideration before the competent authority. 11. The records placed by the State authorities, more particularly, the order dated 07.12.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region, Itanagar, also indicates that the recommendation of land allotment and Land Possession Certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner in Page No.# 6/7 respect of the land under the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area, shall be void ab initio. Thus, the Land Possession Certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, to the individuals for the land which falls under Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area, stands automatically cancelled. 12. Having considered the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)215(AP)2021 as the learned Single Judge has recorded its findings based on the record as reflected clearly in the impugned letter dated 06.04.2021 issued by the Chief Estate Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Thus, we would not have any other observation than the observation made by the learned Single Judge which is based on record. 13. However, considering that no materials is placed on record by the parties so as to discern that whether the Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 10.12.2005 issued in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled or not except a general order i.e. 07.12.2021 declaring the Land Possession Certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, for the land falls under the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Forest area to be void ab initio, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law. 14. In the event, the appropriate authority/forum is required to take a decision as regards the claim of the appellant, the same shall be decided by the authority/forum on its own merit and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made at paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)215(AP)2021. Page No.# 7/7 15. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed with the above observations. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant