Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040016802026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/493/2026 Smti Gyamar Yapu Wife of Late Gyamar Tagam, resident of Yupia-I Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Yupia Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The DLRSO Yupia Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Sub Divisionla Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/4 Yupia Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Smti Nabam Yadap Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Late Nabam Anung resident of Yupia-III Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Smti Nabam Yabang Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Dr K Nishing resident of near BTM Hospital Papu Nallah Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, Signal Yirang,Natu Niji,Toge Rolley,A Perme,Krishna Dubey,Jumge Riram Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 06.10.2026 Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Lowang, learned Senior Government Advocate representing State respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Mr. Perme, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the issuance of Land Possession Page No.# 3/4 Certificate (for short, ‘LPC’), namely, DLRSO/pp/lpc-43/14 dated 28.11.2014 to the respondent No. 6 on the ground that the same has been issued without following the procedure prescribed for issuing such LPC vide Office Memorandum No. LR-31/84 dated 19.12.1988. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to clarify as to whether they have indeed followed the procedure prescribed for issuance of the said LPC. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has, in fact, filed a Title Suit No. 22/2022 by impleading the present respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as defendants in the said suit claiming right, title and interest over the suit land in question. Since the legality and validity of the said LPC is not an issue raised in the Title Suit, the petitioner has, therefore, filed the instant writ petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not aware about the issuance of the said LPC to the respondent concerned until date and therefore, the petitioner have not raised the same before the Civil Court concerned. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has claimed title over the said plot of land covered by LPC and the title suit is admittedly pending for consideration and disposal and as such, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should pursue the title suit Page No.# 4/4 before the Civil Court concerned. Further, if the petitioner, so wishes, he can very well amend the pleadings in the title suit by filing appropriate application to challenge the issuance of the aforesaid LPC to the respondent concerned. As such, in the event of filing such application, the learned Civil Court should consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. It is ordered accordingly 7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, at the motion stage, itself. JUDGE Digitally signed by Talom Tali Date: 2026.10.06 15:51:42 +05'30'