Gauhati HC Directs Arunachal Pradesh Staff Artist to Vacate Government Quarter by 20 August 2026 to Enable Redevelopment

The Itanagar Bench held a government employee had no right to retain Quarter No. 506/T-II after a policy decision to demolish old quarters and construct multi-storied flats for more government employees.

The Gauhati High Court's Itanagar Bench, in a judgment delivered on 4 August 2026, dismissed the writ petition filed by Ms. Mary Megu, a Staff Artist in the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who had sought to retain Government Quarter No. 506/T-II at D-Sector, Naharlagun until her retirement. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, sitting singly, directed Ms. Megu to vacate the quarter on or before 20 August 2026, with no further time to be granted. This was the third writ petition filed by or on behalf of Ms. Megu challenging the same eviction, and the court found that an earlier coordinate bench order from March 2026 had already attained finality on the question of her right to continue in occupation.

The Quarter, the Policy Decision, and the Eviction Notice

Ms. Megu was appointed as a Staff Artist in 1996 and was allotted Quarter No. 506/T-II at D-Sector, Naharlagun by the Director, Urban Development & Housing, in 1998. She had been residing there since.

On 12 January 2026, the Commissioner, Urban Affairs issued a notification informing all concerned that a decision had been taken to demolish the quarters at D-Sector, Naharlagun — including Quarter No. 506/T-II — to construct multi-storied residential flats. The notification set out two immediate alternatives for affected employees: either avail alternative temporary accommodation to be arranged by the executing agency, or draw House Rent Allowance (HRA) until the new flats were ready. It also provided that employees vacating the identified quarters would receive allotment in the first slot of the new multi-storied building upon its completion.

Ms. Megu did not vacate. On 9 February 2026, she filed a representation with the respondent authorities seeking permission to retain the quarter until her retirement. When that representation went undisposed, she moved this court for the first time.

The Prior Rounds of Litigation

In WP(C) No. 85 of 2026, a coordinate bench disposed of the petition on 11 March 2026 by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of Ms. Megu's representation within one week by passing a reasoned order. That bench expressly held that the petitioner could not be said to have any right to continue to remain in the quarter in view of the state government's decision to construct a new multi-storied building. The bench made compliance with the authority's subsequent order mandatory upon Ms. Megu.

The Director of Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, accordingly passed a speaking order on 13 March 2026 rejecting Ms. Megu's prayer. The order explained the circumstances requiring vacation, referred to the proposed better living conditions the new construction would provide, and directed Ms. Megu to vacate and either avail alternative accommodation or claim HRA.

Ms. Megu did not comply. The Estate Officer, Naharlagun, issued a notice under Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 2003, requiring her to appear on 1 July 2026. The matter was not taken up on that date. By order dated 6 July 2026, the Estate Officer fixed the hearing for 13 July 2026. On 13 July 2026, the Estate Officer directed Ms. Megu to hand over vacant possession of Quarter No. 506/T-II to the Director of Housing by 27 July 2026, failing which she would be evicted by force without further notice.

Ms. Megu filed a second writ petition, WP(C) No. 343 of 2026, challenging that order. A coordinate bench, vide order dated 27 July 2026, granted her seven days' time to vacate, making clear that “no further time would be granted to vacate the said quarter.” However, on 31 July 2026, Ms. Megu withdrew that petition with liberty to file afresh. She then filed the present petition, WP(C) No. 367 of 2026.

Arguments Before the Court

Mr. N. Pada, appearing for Ms. Megu, reiterated the personal hardship arguments. He submitted that occupants of adjacent quarters had not been asked to vacate, that Ms. Megu was undergoing cardiac treatment at TRIHMS, and that she was a single mother caring for two daughters who were currently studying. He prayed that she be allowed to remain until her date of superannuation.

Ms. G. Ete, Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State, countered that the policy decision to construct multi-storied flats was taken to benefit a larger number of government employees presently without accommodation, that the existing quarter was old, and that Ms. Megu had no right to seek continued retention against a valid policy decision. She pointed to the coordinate bench order in WP(C) No. 85 of 2026 as having already determined that the petitioner had no right to remain. She also placed before the court the history of WP(C) No. 343 of 2026 and its withdrawal, and urged dismissal of the present petition.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Nair found the core facts undisputed. The government's policy decision to dismantle the old D-Sector quarters and construct a multi-storied building had been communicated through the notification of 12 January 2026. The court examined the terms of that notification and found that no prejudice was caused to Ms. Megu: she had been offered alternative temporary accommodation by the executing agency or the option to draw HRA, and she was guaranteed allotment in the first phase of the new flats once complete.

The court held that the coordinate bench order of 11 March 2026 in WP(C) No. 85 of 2026 had “attained its finality” on the question of Ms. Megu's right to remain. That bench had positively held she had no such right. The direction in that order — that Ms. Megu must comply with whatever the competent authority decided on her representation — had been fulfilled when the Director of Housing rejected her prayer on 13 March 2026 with a speaking order.

The court also noted the directions in the second round, WP(C) No. 343 of 2026, where a coordinate bench had allowed seven more days and expressly stipulated no further extension. Ms. Megu had withdrawn that petition but was not entitled to use the liberty to file afresh as a device to obtain additional time that a coordinate bench had categorically refused.

On the policy question, Justice Nair accepted that the decision to demolish and redevelop served the larger public interest by providing accommodation to more government employees who were currently without it. The court found no basis to interfere with that policy decision. Personal hardship, medical condition, and the pendency of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region, did not alter the legal position that Ms. Megu was bound to comply with directions already made final by an earlier coordinate bench.

Outcome

Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair dismissed WP(C) No. 367 of 2026 and directed Ms. Mary Megu to vacate Quarter No. 506/T-II, D-Sector, Naharlagun, on or before 20 August 2026. The court stated that no further time would be granted. In the event of non-compliance, the respondent authorities were declared at liberty to evict Ms. Megu from the premises by using such force as may be necessary, without issuing any further notice to her.