Taba Takar Vs The State of Ap and Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040003362026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./54/2026

¶5

Taba Takar

¶6

Son of Shri Taba Tasi, presently residing at Model Village, Naharlagun, Po and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and Ors represented by the PP of AP 2:Smti Kalung Kolyang Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Kalung Sala resident of A Sector PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Tarh Hari Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Tarh Chatum resident of Lekhi Village PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Bedanta Kaushik, Ajit Bonia,Duram Miyu,Nabam Hari,Noni Nobeng,Orin Modi,Pankaj Borah

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Likha Moriam,Subu Tapin

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶14

10.03.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State and Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶17

2. The instant criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 assailing certain observations made in the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia in Criminal Revision No.01/2026.

¶18

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land measuring 26,888.35 Sq. Mtrs. situated at helipad area, Naharlagun in the District of Papum pare, Arunachal Pradesh. His title and possession over the said land was declared by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 19/2017 which decree was affirmed by the Appellate Court, i.e., by the Gauhati High Court and finally by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, thereby attaining its finality. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 raised a claim for part of the land and lodged a complaint, on which proceedings under Section 164 BNSS were initiated by the Executive Magistrate who passed a Status quo order dated 23.12.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Status quo order, the petitioner had filed the Crl. Revision No. 01/2026 before the District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia. It is stated that during the said period, the respondent No. 2 has also filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 02/2026 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

seeking specific performance and injunction. However, in the aforesaid T.S. No. 02/2026, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) issued notice but refrained from granting any interim injunction. The Criminal Revision No. 01/2026 was heard on 04.02.2026 and passed Judgment and Order, whereby the learned District and Sessions, Capital Complex, Yupia quashed the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate, holding that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and pending before the Civil Court and therefore, the Executive Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶21

4. It is the case of the petitioner that while passing the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2026, which has been rightly decided by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia has exceeded his jurisdiction by making certain observations on the merit of the dispute in Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 & 10 regarding certain alleged sale and possession of the same by the respondent No. 2. The learned District and Sessions Judge further directed the parties to maintain Status quo.

¶22

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not impugning the merit of the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia, however, what he is challenging is the unwarranted observations that have been made in Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 04.02.2026, which may ultimately influence the learned Civil Court while hearing the T.S. No.02/2026. He submits that this

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

is purely a matter which has to be decided on merit and since the learned District and Session Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia was not suppose to go into the merit of the dispute, he did not have any business to pass any observations on the merits of the case, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Therefore, he submits that an order should be passed by this Court to the effect that those observations shall not influence the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia in adjudicating the matter i.e. T.S. No. 02/2026 and connected Misc. Case No.07/2026.

¶25

6. Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that he does not have any objection if any order is passed as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the interim Status quo which has been passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia should be maintained.

¶26

7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that comments of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia in the order dated 04.02.2026 are purely avoidable. Therefore, this Court directs that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) while hearing the matter, i.e., T.S. No. 02/2026 and the connected Misc. Case No. 07/2026, shall not be influenced by the observations made in Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2026 and decide the matter independently on it’s own merit. It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on the merits or other directions passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Capital Complex, Yupia.

¶27

Page No.# 5/5

¶28

In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant Criminal Petition stands disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Taba Takar v. The State of Ap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taba Takar v. The State of Ap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kara Bate Vs The State of Ap

Ringso Natung and 2 Ors. Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 4 Ors.

Nama Nabam and 7 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Mrs Tao Pompi Toko Vs The State of Ap

Dado Yama Vs the State of Ap

Mrs Minoti Pertin and Anr. Vs The State of Ap