Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040007662026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/239/2026 Charu Tatung Son of Late Charu Tiring, Chairman Upper Jollang Village Committee, Itanagar Capital Region, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh (Suing on behalf of the inhabitants of Village Upper Jollang) VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, 7911112:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar 791111 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Region (ICCR) Papum Pare District Itanagar 791111 5:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Page No.# 2/4 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh Police Department Itanagar Capital Region Itanagar 791111 6:The Commandant Age: 0 Occupation : 4th IRBN Jully Upper Jollang Village Itanagar. 7:The DLRSO Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Region Papum Pare District Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Legal Aid Counsel, k N Maling Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Ms. K. N. Maling, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Considering the subject matter involved, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The challenge in this writ petition is against an order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the Secretary (Land Management), Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has contended that by the impugned order, Page No.# 3/4 the earlier reasoned order dated 25.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has been stayed without any notice. 5. On the other hand, Shri N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that such interim order was passed only to facilitate compliance with certain directions which have been passed while admitting the revision petition. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 would show that the grievance raised in the present writ petition is on the aspect of a stay on the order dated 25.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, until further order. The said order dated 21.04.2026, however, appears to have been passed in Revision Petition No. 01 of 2025, by which the revision petition was admitted and certain directions have been passed to the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex to verify, assess and identify the land which was re-allocated to the Police Department with proper demarcation along with geo-coordinate maps in the presence of the stakeholders. For ready reference, the relevant observations made in the order dated 21.04.2026 are extracted hereinbelow: “…With this observations the revision petition is hereby admitted and it is further directed to the DC, ICC to verify, assess and identify the 7,96,000 sq mtrs of land re-allotted to Police department with proper demarcation along with geo-coordinate map in presence of the contesting party i.e Commandant 4th IRBN or his representatives and Shri Heri Taro and others or their representatives and upon completion of the said exercise the DC ICC shall submit a report to the office of the undersigned. Meanwhile, there shall be stay on the impugned order dated 25/05/2025 passed by the DC, ICC until further order.” Page No.# 4/4 7. This Court is of the view that the consequential direction to stay the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.05.2025 would be necessary to facilitate the directions which has been extracted hereinabove. This Court is also of the view that the matter is temporary in nature, for which there may not be any tangible ground to institute the present challenge. It would be a different matter if such challenge was instituted against a final order passed by the Commissioner (Land Management). 8. While the learned Legal Aid Counsel has emphasized that the order dated 25.05.2025 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner after taking into consideration all aspects and circumstances of the case and is justified, it is not in dispute that there is scope to challenge such an order, which has been done in the proceedings before the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Land Management. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the opinion that no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. It is, however, directed that the proceedings be completed expeditiously by giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is also observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge any final order, if so advised. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant