Allowed

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

Gauhati HC14 Jun 2022WP(C)/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposes of a writ petition challenging land acquisition by invoking the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947. Following a co-ordinate bench judgment, the court held that the older regulation is inconsistent with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, invalidating its use for acquisition in the state. The petition was allowed, directing payment of additional solatium and interest under the 2013 Act

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay solatium and interest under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 within two months of receiving the certified copy of this judgment.

Niranjan Milli and 19 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC040007142021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 245/2021

¶5

1:Niranjan Milli and 19 Ors S/o Shri Atama Mili,

¶6

permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso), PO/PS Anini, District Dibang Valley, A.P

¶7

2: Chupare Mili S/o Shri Atama Mili

¶8

permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P

¶9

3: Mogon Mili S/o Late Kaku Mili

¶10

permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P

¶11

4: Ega Mili S/o Shri Sile Mili

¶12

permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P

5: Atama Mili

Page No.# 2/9

S/o Late Solo Mili

permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 6: Danda Mili S/o Shri Atama Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 7: Ekage Mili S/o Late H. Milli permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 8: Buma Mili S/o Late G. Milli permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 9: Jipi Mili S/o Late G. Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 10: Lalita Menjo D/o Late M. Menjo permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso)

¶17

Page No.# 3/9

¶18

PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 11: Tamange Mili S/o Late S. Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 12: Pahi Mili S/o Shri Tamange Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 13: Kaniya Mili D/o Late Kaku Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 14: Mendre Linggi D/o Late T. Linggi permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 15: Vijoy Molo S/o Shri M.Molo permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P

¶19

Page No.# 4/9

¶20

16: Punam Meto D/o Late N. Meto permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 17: Madan Mili S/o Late Kaku Mili permanent resident of Village - Dambseun (Acheso) PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 18: Akul Mipi S/o Late Mana Mipi permanent resident of Village - Mipi PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 19: Chepe Mipi S/o Late Mana Mipi permanent resident of Village - Mipi PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A.P 20: Emuko Miwu S/o Late Atusi Miwu permanent resident of Village - Maronli PO/PS Anini District Dibang Valley A. VERSUS 1:The State of AP and 4 Ors

¶21

Page No.# 5/9

¶22

represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P, Itanagar

¶23

2:The Secretary/Commissioner Department of Land Management Govt. of A.P Itanagar 3:The Deputy Commissioner Dibang Valley Distt. Anini A.P 4:THE UNION OF INDIA Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Govt. of India Transport Bhawan Bo.1 Parliament street New Delhi 11001

¶24

5:The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Represented by the General Manager (P) NHIDCL BO Roing near JNV Road Roing P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District A.P. Pin Code. 79211

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶27

Page No.# 6/9

¶28

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI

¶29

ORDER

¶30

14.06.2022

¶31

Heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K. Ete, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Shri D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3; Shri D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, for the respondent No. 2; Shri M. Kato, learned ASGI for the respondent No. 4; and Shri T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶32

2. At the outset, Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the issue in question is squarely covered by a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 25.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/280(AP)/2020. Though the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that against the aforesaid judgment a writ appeal has been preferred, the said appeal is said to be time barred and accordingly accompanied by an Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay. That being the position, this Court is left with no other alternative but to follow the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court. However, the brief facts involved are required to be narrated.

¶33

3. The petitioners are project affected land owners for construction of the proposed Mipi to Basam road (0.000 km to 16.730 km) and Dambuen to Bruni (0.000 km to 5.600 km) defence road under the Dibang Valley District. The learned counsel has clarified that though 20 (twenty) numbers of writ

¶34

Page No.# 7/9

¶35

petitioners are before this Court, they have filed the same in a representative capacity for all the project affected persons. It is the contention of the petitioners that though the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was extended to the State of Arunachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 20.03.2014, the impugned communication, dated 10.12.2020, has been issued for acquiring the aforesaid plot of land by invoking Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947. It is the case of the petitioner that after coming into the operation of the Act of 2013, which has been made applicable by the Notification dated 20.03.2014, acquisition of the land under the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 is not permissible as the entire concept of granting adequate and justified compensation would be defeated. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that the various provisions of the Act of 2013, which have been enacted taking into account the interest of the land affected persons, have not been taken into consideration and accordingly has prayed for setting aside the impugned Notification dated 10.12.2020.

¶36

4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as observed earlier, has passed a judgment recently on 25.04.2022 in WP(C)/280(AP)/2020. The facts of the said case are similar to the case of the instant writ petition which involves acquisition of land for Trans Arunachal Highway from Potin to Bopi (Godak) via Yazali etc. In the said case also, the Notification was issued under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation of 1947 and it was the case of the petitioner that after coming into operation of the Act of 2013 vide Notification dated 20.03.2014, the new Act has to be taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge, after discussing all the facts and circumstances which are similar in nature, has made

¶37

Page No.# 8/9

¶38

certain observations and also issued directions, which are extracted herein below:-

¶39

“55. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, the finding of this Court is summarized as under:

¶40

(i) The Regulation of 1947, and the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, are enacted on the same subject, i.e. land, which is a subject of concurrent list. There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in the Regulation of 1947, whereas the same is available in the RFCT & LARR Act. The object sought to be achieved by the Regulation 1947 and the RFCT & LAAR Act are almost the same. And as such Regulation 1947 is inconsistent with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Regulation of 1947 failed to withstand the test of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

(ii) The land of the petitioners acquired for the construction of Trans Arunachal Highway and for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, all are acquired for the ‘public purpose’ and no classification for ‘public purpose’ is permissible.

¶42

(iii) Regulation of 1947, and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, enables the State to give the petitioners different treatment from another, equally situated owners. And as such the petitioners, who are discriminated against, are entitled to protection of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though a classification is sought to be made by the learned In-Charge Advocate General, yet the same is not based upon intelligible differentia, as they cannot be treated differently from the land owners whose lands were acquired for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, as in all the cases the lands are acquired for only one purpose, i.e. ‘public purpose’.

¶43

(iv) The petitioners are entitled to compensation and solatium and interest in view of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as the State cannot make any law in derogation of any provision of the said Act.

¶44

Page No.# 9/9

¶45

Under the above facts and circumstances, I find sufficient merit in these petitions and, accordingly, the same are allowed. Admittedly, the state respondents have already paid compensation to the petitioners herein, under the Regulation 1947. In addition to the said compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest. By a mandamus of this court, the state respondents are directed to work out and make payment of solatium and interest to the petitioners, as provided in the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, and under the Notifications, presently holding the field. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent authorities. On receipt of the certified copy the respondent authorities shall carry out above exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy.”

¶46

5. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the same terms as above with the direction that the same have to be in connection with the present acquisition process. It is however made clear that there should not be any deviation from the compensation which has been determined at the time of making of payment and no items should be left out and the disbursement should be made strictly and in accordance with the observation made above including the observation made in paragraph 55(iv) of the judgment dated 25.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/280(AP)/2020. The period for carrying out the exercise will be also 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶47

6. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed in terms indicated above.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.

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

Kasumoty Tayeng Vs the State of Ap and 10 Ors.

Nabam Yadik and 28 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 16 Ors.