Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040014842026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/427/2026 Bamang Tago Son of Bamang Tabang, resident of near Govt H S School, ESS Sector, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS The State of AP and 10 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 2:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 7911111 3:The Commissioner/ Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change Civil Secretariat Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 4:The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/6 Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 5:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Region Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 6:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 7:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Region Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 8:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Department of Town Planning Civil Secretariat Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.791111 9:The Itanagar Planning Authority Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Member Secretary Itanagar Capital Region Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 10:The Divisional Forest Officer Page No.# 3/6 Age: 0 Occupation : Banderdewa Forest Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791123 11:The Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Wildlife Division Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Plaban Bharadwaj, Mizanur Rahman,Yasmin Gao Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 28.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Riram, learned State Counsel for the respondents. [2.] Having regard to the projection made, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case having been recorded in the order dated 10.09.2026 is being reproduced hereunder: “Heard Mr. Plaban Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. Invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the letter dated 05.05.2026, addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby it is stated that a list of land allotments and LPCs within Durpong Reserve Forest land and Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary has been received from RTI activists, and upon reviewing the Page No.# 4/6 same, all such allotments stood canceled as per order dated 27.02.2022. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner requested the Senior Forest authority to treat all the land allotments and LPCs issued as null and void and take appropriate action as per the provisions of relevant law and rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to order dated 27.02.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar. Upon perusing the said order, I find that it is stated therein that as per directives received from the Department of Environment and Forests vide communication dated 21.11.2011, all land possession certificates and land allotments issued within reserve forest and wildlife sanctuary areas were cancelled by order dated 07.12.2021. It is revealed from the said order that subsequently there were some confusions with regard to the order dated 07.12.2021, whereupon official deliberations were conducted, and ultimately vide the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2022, the aforementioned order dated 07.12.2021 was upheld and all recommendations for land allotments to individuals or groups in respect of Itanagar Reserve Forest/Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary area and Durpong Reserve Forest stood withdrawn, and all the land allotments and LPCs with regard to the said areas stood cancelled with immediate effect. However, some exceptions were indicated pertaining to certain areas. The learned counsel point out that exception 1(e) pertains to Baath Village, measuring 1.6 sq km and that the petitioner was allotted an LPC with regard to the said area. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, therefore, the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2022. However, subsequently, on the basis of a list submitted by the RTI activist, the impugned communication dated 05.05.2025 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, taking all the allotments as cancelled. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel that in the said RTI lists referred to in the communication dated 05.05.2025, the aforementioned Baath Village falls at Sl. No. 17. It is submitted that one of the prayers of the petitioner is that a verification exercise be done with regard to the area and the facts on the ground regarding the aforesaid aspects and Page No.# 5/6 necessary orders be passed. In this context, it is submitted that in the meantime, vide Office Memorandum dated 08.06.2026, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has already constituted a High Level Committee headed by the Deputy Chief Minister for recommending various measures to resolve forest land area issues, including their implementation and monitoring. In this context, it is submitted that this committee is already looking into the aspects which are, in a way, covered by one of the prayers made by the petitioner as mentioned above. The learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents submits that he may be allowed to take instructions regarding the matter and make submissions on the next date. The said prayer is allowed and necessary instruction may be taken. From the materials pointed out, I find that the purported areas of the petitioner, Baath Village, fell within the exclusions at 1(e) and subsequently, the impugned communication came for cancellation of all allotments based on the list submitted by RTI activists. It does not appear from the materials that before sending the impugned communication to the higher forest authority for cancellation of all allotments, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner per-se. Therefore, in the circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to stay the impugned communication, vis-à-vis the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the communication dated 05.05.2025, addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex to the PCCF, Arunachal Pradesh may not be given effect to, with regard to the land area of the petitioner. List it in the motion column on 21.09.2026. The O.M dated 08.06.2026 submitted shall be kept on record.” [4.] Today, Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel submits that since the State has already constituted a committee to resolve the forest area issues, their implementation and monitoring, the petitioner may be given liberty to approach Page No.# 6/6 the said committee and the committee may be directed to consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision within a time frame. [5.] Mr. Y. Riram, learned State Counsel submits that as per the instructions received by him, the High Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is yet to examine and make recommendation for measures and resolution of forest land issues which includes Bath Village. [6.] Having regard to the above projection and taking into the account the fact that the High Level Committee has been constituted for the purpose of recommending the various forest area issues, their implementation and monitoring, the petitioner therefore shall submit his representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region (respondent No.5) within a period of 15(fifteen) days from today and the respondent No.5 thereafter shall place the same before the constituted committee for its consideration within a period of 1(one) week from the date of receipt of the representation. The Committee shall thereafter examine the representation of the petitioner and take a decision as expeditiously as possible preferably within the outer limit of 3(three) months from the date of the matter being placed by the Deputy Commissioner before the Committee. The Committee upon such consideration shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and till such an order is passed, the interim order passed earlier on 10.09.2026 shall continue. [7.] With the above directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant