Tachu Nabam and 69 Ors v. The Union of India and 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/10 GAHC040002602023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/37/2023 Tachu Nabam and 69 Ors. S/o Lt. Taya Nabam, Pakke Kessang Circle, District East Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh. PO/PS Pakke Kessang (AP) 2: Yamar Nabom

3: Yadik Techi

4: Masam Nabam

5: Laniang Nabam

6: Charpa Nabam

7: Yahang Nabam

Page No.# 2/10 8: Nabam Budh Hina

9: Tajik Techi

10: Rata Techi

11: Sinku Techi

12: Rana Techi

13: Tadap Nabam

14: Koni Nabam

15: Yate Techi

16: Yadi Nabam

17: Nabam Girang Page No.# 3/10

18: Yapu Techi

19: Yadik Techi

20: Yahak Techi

21: Mango Nabam

22: Ngurang Yasum

23: Ngurang Gunia

24: Nabam Nai

25: Doch Techi

26: Tajung Nabam

27: Ada Nabam Page No.# 4/10

28: Riche Tana

29: Yami Nabam

30: Sonam Nabam

31: Yaring Nabam

32: Bida Ngurang

33: Nyoro Saji

34: Parkap Saji

35: Tulu Saji

36: Ata Tok

Page No.# 5/10 37: Tabin Nabum

38: Tachi Nabam

39: Tajuk Nabam

40: Logu Nabam

41: Tagam Nabam

42: Hina Nabam Bodha

43: Ram Techi Tara

44: Rongku Techi

45: Jerang Techi

46: Bida Nabam Page No.# 6/10

47: Yalum Tana Nabam

48: Techi John

49: Hania Tana

50: Yasum Saji

51: Tajik Nabam

52: Tajum Nabam

53: Tana Techi

54: Turkin Nabam

55: Dadum Nabam

Page No.# 7/10 56: Khoda Techi

57: Yarang Techi

58: Tado Techi

59: Yaka Nabam

60: Baking Nabam

61: Yapung Tana

62: Tachi Bai

63: Yape Techi

64: Yaja Techi

65: Yotu Techi Page No.# 8/10

66: Nana Tomo

67: Yakap Nabam

68: Torum Nabam

69: Pera Saji

70: Yadum Techi Occupation VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 Ors. Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Govt. of India, Transport Bhavan No 1, and Parliament Street, New Delhi 1100112:THE STATE OF AP Age: 0

3:The Secretary Age: 0

4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0

5:SUSHEE-IVRCL ARUNACHAL HIGHWAYS LTD Age: 0 Page No.# 9/10

8:The Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate Age: 0 Occupation Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato

::BEFORE:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY HON'BLE MRS. MITALI THAKURIA

07.11.2023 (A. D. Choudhury, J) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the connected writ petition was filed for payment of compensation for acquisition of land for construction of Trans National Highway. However, the writ petition was dismissed and this I.A. has been filed for condoning the delay of 168 days. The respondent No. 5 was the contractor who was engaged to execute the construction work. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the determination of the dispute, the respondent No. 5 is not a necessary party and she prays that the name of respondent No. 5 may be deleted from the array of the parties. Considered the above submission. As the matter relates to non-payment of compensation, the Contractor/respondent No. 5, in the considered opinion of this Court shall not be a necessary party to this proceeding, therefore, the name of respondent No. 5 be deleted from the array of the parties. Page No.# 10/10 The delay in approaching this Court is explained at Paragraph No. 3 of the application. The learned counsels representing the State respondents have not objected to condonation of such delay. Considering the pleading, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been able to show sufficient cause in approaching this Court beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the above delay of 168 days in preferring the writ appeal stands condoned. Registry to list the appeal for admission after 2 (two) weeks. Applicant to furnish the copies of the writ appeal to the counsels for the State respondents. List the connected writ appeal after 2 (two) weeks. The I.A. stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant