JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. Heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for Land Management appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by challenging the notice dated 25.03.2013 and an order dated 04.04.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar, Capital Complex. By the first notice, direction were given to show cause as to why a plot of land measuring about 15 square meter over which the petitioner is in occupation should not be evicted and by the subsequent order, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the aforesaid plot of land.

3. The facts of the case as projected in the writ petition can be put in a nutshell in the following manner:

(i) The petitioner who is a retired government servant is before this Court with the challenge mentioned above. According to the petitioner, an area of 477 square meter of land was duly allotted to her and as per the pass book issued in her favour, 300 square meters was for residential purpose and 177 square