Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040007772026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/152/2026 Iken Tao Age: 43 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Kari Tao resident of Village Lipu Likabali PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/6 4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The DLRSO Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Nyai Riba Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Enya Riba resident of Liru Village PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Dilip Saikia Advocate for : GA (AP) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. Dilip Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Pura Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Rage Koyu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and is in lawful possession of a plot of land measuring 7,639 sq. mtrs. situated at Liru village, Likabali, in respect of a Land Possession Certificate(LPC) vide No. BSR/LKB- Page No.# 3/6 LPC-04(pt-IV)/16-17/122, dated 13.12.2016, issued in his favour. The further case of the petitioner is that he had constructed a brick boundary wall on all the 4(four) sides of the land and had also constructed a kutcha house thereon. However, all of a sudden, on 31.03.2026, respondent No. 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, issued an eviction Notice to the tenants of the petitioner directing, to remove the alleged unauthorized structures and to vacate the land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned eviction Notice was issued by the said respondent No. 3 without giving any prior Show Cause Notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned Notice. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6 submits that the respondent No. 6 was in possession of a plot of land measuring 1800 sq. mtrs. bounded by on the North: plot of Shri Goken Dirchi; South: approach road; East: plot of Shri Nechi Ngomle; and West: plot of Shri Karmi Taipodia/Nyadok Tassar. According to the respondent No. 6, the said possession was evidenced by a Land Possession Certificate(LPC) bearing Reg. No. DC/LSD/LM/GREF/2020-21(PART)/536 dated 06.12.2023 issued in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the said Land Possession Certificate(LPC) was issued to the respondent No. 6 in lieu of an earlier Land Possession Certificate (LPC) dated 13.02.2015 issued in his favour by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Basar. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 further submits that while the Page No.# 4/6 respondent No. 6 was in peaceful possesson of the aforesaid plot of land, the GREF authorities allegedly encroached upon the said land, erected a boundary wall around the portion of the land and also constructed temporary building/toilet on the western side of the land. 6. Being aggrieved by such alleged encroachment, the respondent No. 6 lodged a complaint against the GREF before the District authorities, pursuant to which, the land was re-verified by the District authorities in presence of the concerned parties. According to the respondent No. 6, upon such re- verification of the land, the aforesaid Land Possession Certificate(LPC) dated 06.12.2023 was issued in his favour. 7. The State Respondents have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the matter. Their case is that upon receipt of the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 6, the competent authorities conducted re-verification of the land in the presence of the concerned parties. Upon receipt of the re- verification report, the impugned eviction Notice was issued for removal of the encroachment from the land in question. 8. Thus, from the rival submissions, it appears that the claims of the parties with regard to the possession, identity, location and extent of the respective plots of land give rise to disputed question of facts. 9. However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the parties, upon instructions, fairly submit that as the matter involves disputed question of facts, therefore, proper re-verification of the respective plots of land would be necessary for ascertaining the factual position on the ground. They, therefore, Page No.# 5/6 consensually submit that the present Civil Revision Petition may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned competent authority to carry-out a fresh re- verification of the lands in question and thereafter, decide the matter, after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to place their respective claims and supporting documents on record. 10. The learned Government Advocate has no objection to such course of action, subject to grant of reasonable time to the authorities to carry-out and complete the re-verification process. 11. In view of the above consensus between the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the respective claims of the parties or the legality and validity of the impugned Notice, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i). The competent authorities shall conduct a fresh re-verification of the respective plots of land claimed by the petitioner and respondent No. 6, including their identity, measurement and boundaries, in accordance with law. (ii). Such re-verification shall be undertaken after giving due notice and reasonable opportunity to participate to the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 (iii). Both the parties shall be at liberty to produce their respective Land Possession Certificates, revenue paid records, sketch maps, measurements, and other relevant documents before the competent authority. Page No.# 6/6 (iv). The entire re-verification process shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v). Upon completion of the re-verification, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law. 12. Until completion of the aforesaid re-verification and passing of the consequential reasoned order, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession, nature and character of the respective plots of land as on today(7th September, 2026). 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Bikashkonwar, Private Secretary Comparing Assistant