Dismissed

Agur Nangu v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026WP(C)/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged that PWD road construction between Byorung Bridge and Ramsing village damaged his boundary wall, crops and fruit-bearing trees on ancestral land. The court directed a verification by the Political Interpreter, Jengging. The report, prepared in the presence of the petitioner, PWD engineers and the Head Gaon Burah, found the CC road stood at least one metre from the wall, the wall was already dilapidated, and no drain built by the petitioner was visible. Relying on the report, the court held no encroachment or damage occurred and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Agur Nangu Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC040004802023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/181/2023

¶5

Agur Nangu S/o Late Ebey Nangu, R/o Vill Ramsing, PO/PS Jengging, Dist. Upper Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 791002 Mobile No. 9402750101

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors. Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, PWD to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Division Yingkiong District Upper Siang Yingkiong Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Siang District Yingkiong Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

4:The Extra Assistant Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Siang District Jengging Upper Siang Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : C Ering, B Taba

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 18.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. S. D. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms R. Basar, learned State counsel for the respondents.

¶17

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“To issue a mandamas directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the applications of the Petitioner dated 25/04/2022, 01/08/2022, 19/03/2023 for verification of damaged done by the PWD, Yingkiong and consequential relief in a time bound manner;

¶19

And also to re-direct the Extra-Assistant Commissioner of the Upper Siang district to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report on the Complaint filed by the petitioner and upon the report of such enquiry to provide adequate compensation for damages caused by the Respondent Authorities as per the provisions of laws and/or be pleased to pass such other or further order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

¶20

3. The petitioner, who claims to be the local resident of Ramsing village having an ancestral private land measuring about 3000 Sq.mt situated at Yoyi area, has filed this writ petition claiming for compensation on account of damages caused to the boulder boundary wall by the respondents while constructing CC road between Byorung Bridge to Ramsing Village executed by the Yingkiong PWD Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh. The

¶21

Page No.# 3/7

¶22

petitioner claims that his ancestral land is used for cultivation of crops, and there are standing and fruit bearing trees including orange, Toko Patta, Tasat plants, Bamboo plants, Betel nut plants and other seasonal fruits as well as vegetables from which the petitioner earns considerable amount of income for livelihood of his family. The petitioner has a boundary boulder wall since 1995 which was constructed by his father to protect the crops including the standing trees and other fruit bearing plants.

¶23

4. The Public Works Department, Yingkiong Division, Upper Siang District issued tender for construction of 3 Nos of RCC Bridges including improvement of road from Yingkiong to BRTF Road to VKV near Ramsing. The said construction was successfully executed. It is projected that problem has arisen, when the work order for road extension between Byorung bridge to Ramsing village by the Public Work Department, Yingkiong Division, was issued as the land of the petitioner was found to be badly affected as the same passes through the private land of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Yingkiong Division on 16.11.2021 that, in case the road construction work encroaches upon the primary land, the same would cause damage to the boundary wall, which in turn will affect and damage the valuable crops and trees standing on the said land. However, no consideration was made by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities had proceeded to execute the work by damaging the boundary boulder wall constructed by the petitioner which in turn caused heavy damages to the land as well as the standing trees and other fruit bearing plants of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by this present petition seeking a direction

¶24

Page No.# 4/7

¶25

essentially for payment of compensation on account of damage of his boulder boundary wall and the standing crops and trees on the land.

¶26

5. The respondent authorities in response to the claim of the petitioner, has filed an affidavit. Referring to the affidavit, Ms. R. Basar, learned State counsel for the respondents submits that as per the report received from the Political Interpreter, Jengging, the petitioner has not been cooperating with the inquiry process and has failed to make himself available by citing excuses for not being present in the station and therefore, the inquiry could not be conducted as per the direction of this Court. However, finally, the respondent No. 3 has brought on record the report of the Political Interpreter dated 02.01.2025 whereby, it is reflected that on verification, the entire stretch of the CC Road constructed by the PWD was at a distance of at least 1 meter from the stone boulder wall and the gap between the road and the stone boulder wall at few locations were up to 2 meters and at no point of entire stretch of road was found to touch the stone boulder wall. She submits that the Head Goan Bura of Ramsing village in which the petitioner belongs, had clearly stated that the stone boulder wall was already in a dilapidated condition and was damaged at a few locations and the CC drain claimed to have been constructed by the petitioner was nowhere visible at the location and even the Goan Bura had stated that he had not seen any drain at the location.

¶27

6. Mr. S. D. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the stand of the State respondents by relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed today, made a vain attempt to rebut to the effect that the village Headman of the Ramsing village has made a false statements due to personal

¶28

Page No.# 5/7

¶29

enmity with the petitioner and some local people of the said village wanted to communicate with the respondent authority so as to reveal the truth however, they were not given a chance to place the facts of the matter, resulting in causing a huge loss to the petitioner.

¶30

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶31

8. The petitioner appears to have land adjacent to the CC Road constructed by the PWD having old and dilapidated boundary wall constructed for protection of his land which is claimed to be used for cultivation of crops and raising of valuable trees on the land. As per the direction of this Court on 15.04.2023, eventually a verification was carried out by the concerned authorities on 17.12.2024. Accordingly, the verification report was submitted by the Political Interpreter, Jengging, on being entrusted, which is reproduced herein below:

¶32

“ENQUIRY REPORT

¶33

The undersigned visited the garden of Shri. Agur Nangu, at Ramsing village on 17/12/2024 for verification of complaint regarding demolition of stone boulder wall and fencing. Shri Agur Nangu, AE & JE PWD Yingkiong Division and Sri. Alo Pangkam, HGB of Ramsing village were present at the location.

¶34

On verification, the entire stretch of the CC road constructed by PWD was found to be at a distance of atleast 1(one) Mtr from the stone boulder wall. The gap between the CC road and stone boulder wall at few locations were upto 2(two) metres. At no point of the entire stretch the road was found to touch the stone boulder wall.

¶35

AS per Head Gaon Burah (HGB) of Ramsing village, the stone boulder wall was already in dilapidated condition and was already damaged at few

¶36

Page No.# 6/7

¶37

locations. Further, the CC drain claimed to have been constructed by Agur Nangu, was nowhere visible at the location. The HGB also said that he had not seen any drain at that location.

¶38

Shri. Anong Nokar

¶39

P.I, Jengging Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh”

¶40

9. Perusal of the aforesaid report shows that the verification was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, Public Work Department, Yingkiong Division and one Shri Alo Pangkam, Head Gaon Burah of the Ramsing village. It is reflected clearly that the entire stretch of the CC Road constructed by the PWD was found to be at a distance of at least 1 metre from the stone boulder wall of the petitioner and the gap between the CC road and the stone boulder wall at few locations were up to 2 metres and at no point of entire stretch of road was found to touch the stone boulder wall of the petitioner. It further reflects that as per the Head Goan Burah of Ramsing village the stone boulder wall was already in dilapidated condition and was already damaged at few locations and clarified that the CC drain claimed to have been constructed by the petitioner was nowhere visible at the location and the Goan Burah had also not seen any drain at the location. Thus, it is clear as noonday that there is no encroachment much less damage to the land or boulder boundary wall of the petitioner which stands at a distance of one metre and two metres at some point from the CC Road constructed by the PWD. Therefore, the claim of damage of the boulder boundary wall of the petitioner, would not arise.

¶41

10. Having considered the claim of the petitioner, this Court had directed

¶42

Page No.# 7/7

¶43

for verification of the claim in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, verification was conducted and carried out. The verification having been done in the presence of the petitioner and other stake holders, as well as considering that the verification report clearly reflects that a distance of one metre and two metres at some point from the CC Road constructed by PWD is found to exist and the no damage could be found on the boulder boundary wall of the petitioner which was rather already in a dilapidated condition and no CC drain have been constructed by the petitioner, I am of the considered views that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the present proceedings.

¶44

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

¶47

Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.18 18:52:57 +05'30'

Agur Nangu v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Agur Nangu v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases