Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040004942026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/23/2026 Tindu Chader Son of Late Tayu Chader, resident of village Gumsing Taying, PO Taksing, PS Nacho, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Land Management, AP Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Daporijo Upper Subnasnsiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Circle Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Taksing Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk, Gekar Bagra,P Tashi,Mipe Ete,Lokam Tadam,Bate Joel Koyu,Kirpok Eshi,Mitem Ratan Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Page No.# 2/5 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER 07.04.2026 (S.K. Medhi , J.) Heard Shri D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, AP. 2. Considering the subject matter in this appeal, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The intra-court appeal has been preferred against a judgment dated 27.03.2026 passed in WP(C)/206/2025. The relief prayed for in the writ petition reads as follows: “ PRAYER In the premises aforesaid, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that your Lordship would be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for records, issue rule calling upon the Respondents as to why :- I. the impugned order vide no.TKG/JUD-02/2023-24 dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Taksing directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division to demolish and construct a permanent RCC building for CO office upon the private land of the petitioner should not be set aside and quashed in the interest of justice. II. Direction/order should not be passed for verification and demarcation of land for development of new Circle Headquarter in terms of meeting minutes dated 05.03.2025 and 05.04.2025 signed by the Circle Officer, Tasking. Page No.# 3/5 III. and/or any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. And further upon hearing such cause / or causes as may be shown by the respondents and on the perusal of the records be pleased make the Rule absolute and may pass any other order /or orders and direction / or directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. -AND- IN THE INTERIM it is prayed that till the disposal of the Rule your Lordships may be pleased to stay and suspend the operation of the illegal and arbitrary impugned order dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Tasking directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division for demolition and construction of new RCC building for CO office.” 4. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order has come to a finding that prima facie there was no documentary proof that the petitioner had lent the present portion of the land. Nonetheless, a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the representation filed by him on 28.04.2025. 5. Shri Kamduk, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated all the facts which were on record, including the minutes of meeting dated 05.03.2025. He has also submitted that the materials on record would show that the petitioner had a valid claim. 6. We are however, of the opinion that the present appeal has been preferred primarily on apprehension that the case of the petitioner would not be fairly Page No.# 4/5 considered. There is however no reasonable basis for such apprehension. 7. The law is well settled on the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal. It has been laid down that unless the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is wholly unreasonable or perverse, merely on the ground that another view is plausible, the appellate Court would be loath to substitute the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has not only painstakingly compiled all the facts but has also assigned cogent and justifiable grounds to come to the conclusion. In this connection, it would be gainful to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, wherein it has been held as follows: “4……….Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 8. We have also noted that the ultimate direction is for a verification of the claim of the petitioner based on the representation. We are of the view that the aforesaid direction does not require any interference. We, however, add that while making the said verification, all the materials, including the minutes of meeting dated 05.03.2025 be taken into consideration by the respondent authorities. Page No.# 5/5 9. It is needless to state that such verification exercise be conducted by prior information to the appellant so that he can be present. 10. The writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant