The Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench, on April 28, 2025, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of Land Possession Certificates (LPC), No Objection Certificates (NOC), and Land Availability Certificates issued in the Namsai Reserve Forest area. The Court found no illegality in the issuance of these documents based on a government inquiry.
The PIL, filed by the All Arunachal Tribal Rural Panchayat Restoration Andolan Committee (AATRPRAC), sought cancellation of these certificates. The petitioner alleged they were issued illegally and requested that further construction activities in the reserve forest be suspended until the matter was fully heard.
Court’s Observations and Government’s Stand
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kardak Ete, highlighted that the state government had already conducted an official inquiry into the matter. The report, submitted by the state authorities, confirmed that:
“No illegality has been committed in issuance of the Land Possession Certificates and the No Objection Certificates in the reserve forest area of Namsai. Everything has been done in accordance with law.”
The Bench noted that the petitioner had not submitted any counter or objection against the inquiry report, even after being given several opportunities.
- On September, 2024, the Court was informed of the government inquiry, and the petitioner requested more time to file a counter.
- On December, 2024, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the PIL to allow filing of a new proceeding challenging the inquiry report. However, the Court denied the withdrawal and allowed objections to be filed through an additional affidavit.
- Subsequently, the petitioner’s counsel stepped back from the case and confirmed this by submitting a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
- The Court granted the petitioner two weeks to appoint a new lawyer, but on April 28, no one appeared on their behalf.
Due to the absence of any counter-affidavit and the fact that the official inquiry found no irregularities, the Court concluded:
“We are not inclined to keep this PIL petition pending. The same is therefore, disposed of.”
The Court thus closed the matter, emphasizing that the petitioner had failed to raise any substantial opposition to the inquiry findings
Case Title: AATRPRAC v. The Union of India & 7 Ors.
Case No.: PIL/13/2023
