Allowed

Manakso Taflap and 46 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Jun 2022WP(C)/175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court held that the State could not reduce compensation already assessed and deposited, contrary to an earlier judgment in WP(C)/240(AP)/2021, and set aside a communication effecting such reduction.

What did the court decide?

Set aside communication dated 01.05.2022 reducing compensation; respondents directed to pay compensation to petitioners within 45 days.

Manakso Taflap and 46 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/16

¶2

GAHC040005292022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 175/2022

¶5

1:Manakso Taflap and 46 Ors. S/o Shri Khamaya Taflap, Resident of Hayuliang, PO/PS Hayuliang, Anjaw District, AP

¶6

2: Mopen Taflap S/o B. Taflap

¶7

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶8

PO/PS Shri Manakso Taflap aged about 22 years S/o Shri Khamaya Taflap resident of Hayuliang PO/PS Hayuliang Dist. Anjay Arunahal Pradesh.

¶9

3: Topenso Tega S/o Mishe Tega resident of Abohagam PO/PS Anjaw Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

4: Greche Mai S/o Sokhi Mai Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw

¶11

Page No.# 2/16

¶12

Arunachal Pradesh.

¶13

5: Maisngsai Mai S/o Greeche Mai Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

6: Cheelum Flakam S/o Lt. J. Flakam

¶15

Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶16

7: Sokhi Mai S/o Lt. L. Mai

¶17

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶18

PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶19

8: Sajinlu Flakam D/o Shri Cheelum Flakam Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶20

9: Tiflolum Mai S/o Shri Chekansia Mai Reisdent of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶21

Page No.# 3/16

¶22

10: Banimlum Taflap S/o Lt. T. Taflap Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶23

11: Hirorai Tega W/o Hanyalum Tega Resident of Village Tagamma PO/PS Chagalgam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶24

12: Eshanlu Tega W/o Hanyalum Tega Resident of Village Tegamma PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶25

13: Bilusai Tega D/o Lt. K. Tega Resident of Village Tegamma PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶26

14: Disamlu Tayang D/o Topinso Tega Resident of Village Abohagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶27

15: Nikhilum Tega S/o Yatong Tega

¶28

Page No.# 4/16

¶29

Resident of Village Tegamma PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. 16: TinkhaTega S/o B. Tega Resident of Village Abohagam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Niram Tega S/ o B. Tega Resident of Village Tegamma PO/PS Chagalagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. 18: Jinrusu Tega S/o Tinkha Tega Resident of Village Abohogam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Palisal Tega W/o Badyo Tega Resident of Village Tegamma PO/PS Chagalagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶30

20: Johanlum Tega S/o Lt. K. Tega Resident of Village Tegamma

¶31

Page No.# 5/16

¶32

PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶33

21: Babrum Tega S/o Dominso Tega Resident of Village Abohogam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶34

22: Dimonso Tega S/o Lt. Aphanlum Tega Resident of Village Abohogam PO/PS Chaglagam Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh

¶35

23: Jovinlu Tega D/o Lt. M. Tega

¶36

Resident of Village Abohogam PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶37

24: Bapang Mai S/o Lt. T. Mai

¶38

Resident of Taflagam Village PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶39

25: Tikolum Marow S/o Bokuso Marow

¶40

Resident of Village Kromna PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

26: Melan Bellai

Page No.# 6/16

S/o Titusa Bellai

Resident of Village Taflagam PO/PS Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶45

27: Sanju Tega S/o Lt. G. Tega Resident of Village Nilang PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶46

28: Damchasai Tega W/o Yomte Tega Resident of Village Tegamna PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶47

29: Bruchalum Tega S/o Lt. M. Tega Resident of Village Tegamna PO/PS Chaglagam District Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶48

30: Laliang Tega Resident of Village Tegamna PO/PS Chagalagam District Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh.

¶49

31: Basnrai Tega W/o Johanlum Tega Resident of Tegamna Chaglagam PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶50

Page No.# 7/16

¶51

32: Maliko Taflap D/o Khayakma Taflap

¶52

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶53

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶54

33: Changlasai Taflap W/o Krekma Miss Dayamsai Tega

¶55

D/o Yatong Tega

¶56

Resident of Village Tegamna Chaglagam PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶57

34: Tabaso Bellai S/o Lt. M. Bellai

¶58

Resident of village Abohogam

¶59

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶60

35: Tikorai Mayi W/o Chekamsia Mayi

¶61

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶62

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶63

36: Chekamsia Mayi S/o S. Mai

¶64

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶65

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶66

Page No.# 8/16

¶67

37: Balesai Tabronyu D/o G. Tabronyu

¶68

Resident of Village Abohagam

¶69

PO/PS Anjaw District A.P

¶70

38: Maklan Mayi S/o B. Mai

¶71

Resident of Villagae Taflagam

¶72

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶73

39: Chokhi Taflap S/o Lt. T. Taflap

¶74

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶75

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶76

40: Balesai Tabronyu D/o G. Tabronyu

¶77

Resident of Village Abohayam

¶78

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶79

41: Hageso Taflap S/o Khayakma Taflap

¶80

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶81

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶82

42: Ramolu Korah W/o Kumba Korah

¶83

Page No.# 9/16

¶84

Resident of Village Kromna

¶85

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶86

43: Shakholum Taflap S/o Lt. B. Taflap

¶87

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶88

PO/PS Anjaw districtTaflap aged about 52 years resident of village Taflagam PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶89

44: Klekma Taflap S/o Lt. T. Taflap

¶90

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶91

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶92

45: Uju Mal W/o Chokhi Taflap Resident of Village Taflagam

¶93

PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶94

46: Ganga Tega S/o Jingling Tega Village resident of Tegamna Chagalagam PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶95

47: Tepasai Flap S/o Khayama Taflap

¶96

Page No.# 10/16

¶97

Resident of Village Taflagam

¶98

PO/PS Anjaw Dist. Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh

¶99

VERSUS

¶100

1:THE STATE OF AP and 3 Ors.

¶101

Represented through the Chief Secretary, GoAP, Civil Secretariate, Itanagar, AP. Pin 791111

¶102

2:The Secretary Land Management

¶103

Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Civil Secretariat A.P Pin 791111

¶104

3:The Deputy Commissioner PO/PS Hayuliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶105

4:The Commanding Officer 116 RCC (GREF) 116 Road Constr Coy (GREF). PIN 930116 C/O 99 APO

¶106

Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow

¶107

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶108

Page No.# 11/16

¶109

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶110

ORDER

¶111

Date : 13-06-2022

¶112

Heard Shri D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shir R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3; Shri D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, for the respondent No. 2; and Shri M. Kato, learned ASGI for the respondent No. 4.

¶113

2. The subject matter of dispute in this writ petition is within a very short campus. In fact, the principal cause of action has already been adjudicated by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, instituted by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, being WP(C)/240(AP)/2021, which was disposed of vide an order dated 04.04.2022. It is in connection with the consequential action of the said order that the present writ petition had to be filed.

¶114

3. The petitioners, who are 47 (fourty seven) in numbers, have joined together in filing the present writ petition. The petitioners are affected by acquisition of the land for construction of a defence road from Chaglagam to Rocham in the Anjaw District, which is to be carried out by the 48 BRTF. It is the case of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings were carried out whereby the petitioners were deprived of their valuable land and after following the due process of law, the compensation was assessed and the proposal was sent to the requiring authority for making the necessary payment. The requiring

¶115

Page No.# 12/16

¶116

authority, namely, 48 BRTF, after careful consideration, had deposited the assessed amount of Rs. 27,81,59,193/- by an account transfer made on 27.08.2020. The aforesaid fact of the transfer of the amount, apart from the pleaded and demonstrated by annexing the document at Annexure-8, the learned counsel for the respondents have fairly admitted of such amount being paid which is lying with the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw. However, since the amount in question was not being released to the petitioners, they had filed a writ petition before this Court, being WP(C)/240(AP)/2021.

¶117

4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide an order dated 04.04.2022, after hearing all the parties. This Court also had the occasion to deal with an order dated 24.06.2021, by which, the matter was referred back for reassessment. This Court, after hearing, while setting aside the order dated 24.06.2021, had remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to make the disbursement at the earliest as per entitlement of the petitioners without getting into the non-existent technicalities and merely making an issue out of it. For ready reference, the relevant observations of the aforesaid judgment, dated 04.04.2022, is extracted herein below –

¶118

“4. The entire stand of the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District is unacceptable inasmuch as the land of the petitioners had already been taken possession by the acquiring department. The acquiring department had deposited whatever amount is required to be deposited. There further cannot remain any issues with the Deputy Commissioner not to disburse the amount to the actual land owners by merely raising issues, one sending it down to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for doing needful and then again blaming the Government for not making approval. If there is any requirement of law to act in such manner the same should be done at the earliest and the respondents by not doing their needful cannot make it to be a basis not to make the payments. The entire act of the Deputy Commissioner and the others appears to

¶119

Page No.# 13/16

¶120

be arbitrary and unacceptable in law. The order dated 24.06.2021 is accordingly set aside.

¶121

The mater is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to do the needful for making the disbursement at the earliest as per the entitlement of the petitioners without getting into non-existent technicalities and merely making issue out of it. If actually under the law any approval is required to the Government, the same be done forthwith or else the respondents to return back the land to the land owners.

¶122

If the rate of any of the item in the acquisition is required to be determined, let the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw do it and complete the same within 15 (fifteen) days from the receipt of the certified copy and thereafter the matter be placed before the Government for its approval. If the land owners are ascertained and the amount of compensation to be paid is determined, there cannot remain any further issue for the Government not to give the approval and the Government cannot hold back the grant of approval without any valid and acceptable reason.”

¶123

5. Shri D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that after such clear direction from this Court, there is hardly any scope of the respondent to take any other view which may amount to sitting on an appeal on the judgment of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforesaid order has attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the same and therefore, the respondent authorities are debarred in law from taking any excuse not to comply with the direction contained in the order dated 04.04.2022. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the proceeding of a meeting, dated 01.05.2022, whereby, the amount assessed has been reduced to Rs. 14,30,95,569/-. It is contended that such reduction is wholly without any jurisdiction as there was no scope for making any further assessment. By referring back to the judgment dated 04.04.2022, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the observation made in paragraph 6 pertains to any item for which the rate was not determined and it was only for those items

¶124

Page No.# 14/16

¶125

that a direction was issued to complete the process which cannot amount to reopening the entire assessment process. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the additional-affidavit, filed on 10.06.2022, wherein, an order dated 09.05.2022 has been annexed, wherein, in paragraph 2, the same authority has made a clear observation that after the aforesaid order, dated 04.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/240(AP)/2021, there is no scope of any re-verification or reassessment as the same would amount to serious violation of the order of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel contends that in view of the order, dated 09.05.2022, from which, it appears that the order of this Court has been properly understood, there was absolutely no scope to come to a decision as recorded in the communication dated 01.05.2022, by which, the compensation has been reduced by a huge amount.

¶126

6. Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner has to be approved by the State Government and mere payment of the amount by the requiring authority may not be enough to make the payment and it is only on account of lack of approval from the appropriate department of State Government that the amount has not been disbursed. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that going by the present writ for assessment, it is a fact that while making the assessment for that the petitioner, the consideration for cardamom plantation was not taken into account.

¶127

7. Shri D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, fairly submits that the judgment dated 04.04.2022, having been accepted, the department would abide by orders that may be passed by this Court in the present case.

¶128

Page No.# 15/16

¶129

8. Shri M. Kato, learned ASGI, has drawn the attention of this Court to page 50 of the writ petition (Annexure-8) to show that the amount assessed has already been deposited in the account of the Extra Assistant Commissioner of the District in August, 2022, and is lying with them.

¶130

9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the issue being adjudicated and set to rest vide the order dated 04.04.2022, in the earlier writ petition, being WP(C)/240(AP) /2021, after hearing all the parties and the said order not being the subject matter of any further appeal, there is hardly any scope to take any other view as the same would amount to sitting over the judgment of this Court, which is not legally permissible. Apart from the same, in the order dated 04.04.2022, which was passed after hearing parties, elaborate discussions were done and the determination of rate has to be understood only for that part, wherein the same was not fixed. Further, it has been categorically observed that if the land owners are ascertained and the amount of compensation to be paid is determined, there cannot remain any further issue for the Government not to give the approval and the Government cannot hold back the grant of approval without any valid and acceptable reason. This Court also finds force in the argument made on behalf of the petitioner that the same authority in order dated 09.05.2022, by referring to the earlier order dated 04.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/240(AP)/2021 has clearly observed that there is no scope for any reverification or reassessment except for verification to include the left out properties as the same would amount to serious violation of the order of this Court.

¶131

Page No.# 16/16

¶132

10. This Court is of the opinion that if that be the understanding of the concerned authorities, there was absolutely no scope to come to a decision for making a further assessment as sought to be done by the impugned communication, dated 01.05.2022. The exercise for doing the assessment having been completed and the same being accepted and the amount assessed being paid to the authority, the communication, dated 01.05.2022, could not have been issued as the same is also in violation of the directions of this Court in its order dated 04.04.2022 and accordingly, the said communication, dated 01.05.2022, is set aside. Consequently, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, are directed to take immediate steps to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners after the appropriate identification in terms with the direction given by this Court in its earlier order dated 04.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/240(AP) /2021. Such disbursement be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 45 (fourty five) days from the date of this order.

¶133

11. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶134

JUDGE

¶135

Comparing Assistant

Manakso Taflap and 46 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manakso Taflap and 46 Ors. v. the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Donyi Polo Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Annong Apang Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Chime Yangsang Pema Kod Welfare Society Vs the State of Ap and 9 Ors.

Niranjan Milli and 19 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

The State of Ap Vs M/s T. K and Sons Enterprises

Kasumoty Tayeng Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.