Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001922026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/44/2026 In WP(C)/39/2026 Gyamar Takar @ Bharat and 2 Ors Son of Late Gyamar Tajik, resident of Yupia - I, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Yakiam Tatin Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Tate Tatin presently residing at RWD Colony Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nabam Chiyee Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Tekhi permanent resident of Yupia Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Yupia Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 791110 3:The Sub Divisional Officer cum Executive Magistrate Page No.# 2/3 Age: 0 Occupation : Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 791110 4:Tana Pol Age: 0 Occupation : Chairman representing DVWC resident of Village Yupia-II PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Smti Tana Serbi Tara Age: 0 Occupation : President representing HHCAWC resident of Village Yupia-III PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Biri Esther, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 12.02.2026 Heard Shri C. Modi, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned State Counsel, A.P. as well as Shri P. Techi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. By the instant IA, a modification has been sought in respect of the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in WP(C)/39/2026. A bare perusal of the nature of the relief prayed for would show that it is, in Page No.# 3/3 fact a review which has been sought for qua the order dated 05.02.2026. The Rules holding the field provide for filing a review petition which would require fulfillment of various prescriptions and the same cannot be replaced by filing an interlocutory application. In view of the above, the IA stands dismissed. However, liberty is grated to the applicants to approach this Court with an appropriate review application, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant