Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001952026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/47/2026 Paching Tayum and Anr Son of Late Paching Tade, resident of Gohpur Tinali, PO RK Mission, PS Chimpu, ICR, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tai Taley Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tai Tariam resident of Village Layang PO and PS Sangram Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Smti Minu Dodum and 3 Ors Wife of Shri Ram Sonam, resident of Gohpur Tinali, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The State of Arunachal Pradesh Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Land management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Complex Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Town Planner cum Member Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/6 Itanagar Planning Authority Capital Region Itanagar Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Orin Modi, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Pritam Taffo Linked Case : WP(C)/26/2026 Smti Minu Dodum Age: 42 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Ram Sonam resident of Gohpur Tinali PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary Land management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Itanagar Capital Complex Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Town Planner cum Member Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Itanagar Planning Authority Capital Region Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 3/6 4:Tai Taley Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Tai Tariam resident of Village Layang PO and PS Sangram Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Paching Tayum Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Paching Tade resident of Gohpur Tinali PO RK Mission PS Chimpu ICR Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Pritam Taffo Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 4 Ors: Advocate , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the applicants. Also Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. 2. This is an application praying for modification/vacation/alteration of the order dated 29.01.2026, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 26(AP)2026, by which the impugned withdrawal order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Itanagar Planning Authority, Capital Region, Itanagar, granting permission for Land Development to the opposite party/writ petitioner Page No.# 4/6 for an area of 500 sqm, allotted to the petitioner from 07.01.2026 to 07.02.2026, is stayed . 3. The opposite party has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 26/2026, challenging the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, ICR, whereby the Land Development Permission dated 05.01.2026, granted to the opposite party/writ petitioner, was withdrawn. This Court, vide order dated 29.01.2026, has stayed the impugned order dated 19.01.2026. 4. Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that in the course of carrying out land development and earth-cutting, the opposite party/writ petitioner has damaged and obstructed the approach road, thereby depriving the applicants and their family members of ingress and egress for the past three weeks. As a result, the applicants and their family members are left without road connectivity and the school-going children, as well as other family members, are being prevented from access to medical treatment and attending classes. He, therefore, submits that the interim order dated 29.01.2026 may be vacated. 5. Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner, submits that the applicants do not have a valid land allotment order in respect of the land they claim to be under possession and the land claimed to be an approach road falls within the area legally allotted to the opposite party/writ petitioner. He submits that the only intention of the applicants is to forcefully grab the land by falsely claiming it to be an approach road, which, in fact, falls within the legally allotted area of the opposite party. He submits that, on humanitarian grounds, the opposite party/writ petitioner has provided a staircase for the ingress and egress of the applicants and their family members. Page No.# 5/6 6. Mr. Taffo, learned counsel submits that on an earlier occasion, when a disturbance was created by applicant No. 2, namely Shri Tai Taley, the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 23.09.2022, had observed that Shri Tai Taley had trespassed upon the land of the opposite party/writ petitioner, which was illegal and had directed him to refrain from using the approach road through the said plot. That order has since attained finality, as Shri Tai Taley subsequently withdrew the writ petition filed against it. Further, he submits that applicant No. 1 has filed a Title Suit, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia, wherein no injunction or interlocutory order has been passed in respect of the claim of the applicant. Therefore, he submits that the Land Development Permission having been legally issued to the opposite party/writ petitioner and thereafter, withdrawn illegally on the purported pendency of the Title Suit, this Court has rightly passed the interim order, having found a prima facie case in favour of the opposite party/writ petitioner. In view of the above, he contends that no ground is made out for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order. 7. Having considered that this Court, on the factual aspects of the matter and having found that a prima facie case has been made out, has passed the interim order dated 29.01.2026 and also considering the fact that the opposite party/writ petitioner has provided a staircase for the ingress and egress of the applicants and their family members, although she claims that no right has accrued to the applicants to claim the approach road, which falls within the legally allotted plot of the opposite party/writ petitioner, where she is carrying out land development within the legally permitted area as well as considering that a Title Suit filed by applicant No. 1 is pending without any injunction or interlocutory order having been passed, I am of the considered view that no Page No.# 6/6 ground is made out for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 29.01.2026, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 26(AP)2026 . 8. However, considering that the opposite party/writ petitioner has already provided a staircase for the use of the applicants and their family members; she is directed to allow their ingress and egress without any obstruction or disturbance until the final outcome of the matter. 9. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant