Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040007842026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/245/2026 Smti Obar Tasung Daughter of Shri Tapun Tasung, Sibut Village, PO Yagrung, PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary of Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director cum Ex Officio Joint Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Assistant Commissioner cum Estate Officer Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Tabing,Bebeng Siboh,Aso Dalbong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Shri T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State. 2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The petitioner has put to challenge an eviction order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, East Siang District. By the said eviction order, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the government land/public premises situated at Agam Colony, Pasighat, within 15 days from the date of service of the order. 4. Shri Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, amongst others, has contended that after obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned Municipal Authority, the petitioner is in occupation of the land and had applied for the grant of land allotment, which is still pending. Under these circumstances, passing of the impugned eviction order is unreasonable. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Ete, learned State Counsel has submitted that even on earlier occasions, notices had been issued to vacate the government land and, in spite of that, the petitioner had carried on the construction. She has also submitted that against the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, there is a scope to prefer an appeal. She has also highlighted that though an appeal is stated to have been preferred, the same was filed on 25.05.2026 and immediately thereafter, on 02.06.2026, the instant writ petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/3 6. Shri Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has apprehension that forceful eviction may take place as the appeal has not yet been taken into consideration. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of going into the inter-se merits of either of the parties, the appeal which has been preferred on 25.05.2026 should be directed to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. The Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, is accordingly directed to take on record the appeal filed by the petitioner on 25.05.2026 and pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to all the stakeholders. 8. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file an application for stay of the order of the Estate Officer, and if the same is done within a period of one week from today, the eviction order shall not be given effect to till such application is considered and disposed of. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant