Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040017052026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/503/2026 Dimso Manyu and 3 Ors Son of Late Some Manyu, Gai/ Gong Village, PO Walong, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Kapsitlum Manyu Age: Occupation : Son of Late W Manyu Gai/ Gong Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Changhum Manyu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Some Manyu Gai/ Gong Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Samle Manyu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Some Manyu Gai/ Gong Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 18 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Page No.# 2/7 Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Anjaw District Hawai Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Circle Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Walong Circle Walong Anjaw District Hawai Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Rahul Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Balingso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Tochanglum Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Sotham Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/7 8:Dechem Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:Baprawso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Bathanso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 11:Banewso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 12:Bola Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : C/o Mrs Golemso Kri (Tulang) DFDO Tezu Lohit District presently residing at Kanchi Char Ali Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 13:Bagang Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Pomliang Village PO Tezu Page No.# 4/7 Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 14:Phlamso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Pomliang Village PO Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 15:Bakhui Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : C/o Police Station PO Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 16:Natengso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Khrowti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 17:Bakraiso Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : C/o Police Station Tezu PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 18:Timjai Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 19:Monrong Tulang Age: 0 Occupation : Sarti Village Page No.# 5/7 PO Walong Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Debo K Deori, Epra Melo Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 08.10.2026 Heard Mr. D. K. Deori, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. [2.] Having regard to the nature of the case projected by the petitioners, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Circle Officer dated 12.11.2010, whereby the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents was decided in favour of the private respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Circle Officer does not have the authority to decide such a dispute between the rival indigenous parties. [3.] Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No. 31/2010 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2011 by relegating the petitioners to oppose the Deputy Commissioner and the jurisdiction against the order of the Circle Officer. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners then filed an appeal before the Deputy Page No.# 6/7 Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hawai, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 01/2011. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2012 on the grounds of delay, as Section 51 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 provides for a limitation period of one month to file an appeal. [4.] In the meantime, the private respondents initiated execution proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The said execution proceeding came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2026, whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioners to vacate the suit land and remove the structures erected thereon within the stipulated time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. [5.] It is seen that the petitioners have invoked both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India while filing the instant writ petition. It is further seen that after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hawai, on 27.02.2012, the petitioners did not take any further steps or approach any forum for redressal of their grievance. [6.] It is only upon the disposal of the execution proceeding on 23.07.2026, whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioners to vacate the suit land and remove the structures standing thereon, that the petitioners have approached this Court. [7.] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners can approach this Court at any time as there is no period of limitation to file a writ petition. It is true that there is no prescribed period of limitation Page No.# 7/7 for filing a writ petition. However a party aggrieved is required to approach the Court within a reasonable period, and if there is delay on the part of the aggrieved party the same must be explained by giving appropriate reasons. [8.] The petitioners, in the instant case, have not given any explanation as to what prevented them from approaching this Court after their appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hawai on 27.02.2012. [9.] Therefore, having regard to the inordinate delay in approaching this Court and in absence of any explanations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. [10.] Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant