NABAM VIVEK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) The material facts, which have given rise to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(3.) Aggrieved by the notice, dated 14.9.2011, aforementioned, the petitioner, with the help of this writ petition, made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought for issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned notice, dated 14.9.2011, and also commanding the respondents to take possession of the land, which was already acquired by notice, dated 6.4.2011, the allegation of the petitioner being that it is for extraneous considerations and personal incentives that the land, which had been acquired, is not being accepted by the IOC.