Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC040009442022

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

Case No. : WP(C) 272/2022

1:Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, S/o Tani Jerang,

Resident of Village Mikong, PO and PS Bilat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, Mobile No. 6009373784

2: Taram Mize

Son of Lt. Taget Mize

Village Mirem PO Bilat and PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

3: Talok Mize S/o Shri Takir Mize

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

4: Tapang Mize S/o Shri Takir Mize

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

5: Lipak Moyong S/o Late Apan Moyong

Page No.# 2/9

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

6: Tapak Taying S/o Late Tater Taying

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

7: Thomas Taying S/o Shri Tatung Taying

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

8: Anand Mize S/o Shri Taro Mize Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

9: Tajing Taki S/o Shri Tyom Taki

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

10: Tator Taying S/o Shri Tasup Taying

Page No.# 3/9

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

11: Tajing Panggeng S/o Late Kakang Panggeng Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

12: Okut Darang S/o Late Tagang Darang

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

13: Tani Mize S/o Late Tatem Mize Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

14: Yembai Mize S/o Shri Taro Mize

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

15: Talom Nonang S/o Shri Tadi Nonang

Page No.# 4/9

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

16: Oling Messar S/o Late Maring Messsar Village Mikong PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

17: Lenjing @ Tabu Nonang S/o Shri Obang Nonang

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

18: Kadum Taki S/o Late Taning Taki

Village Mirem PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

19: Obit Taki S/o Talo Taki Village PO Bilat PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

20: Takir Messar S/o Lt. T. Messar Village Bilat

Page No.# 5/9

PO Napit PS Ruksin District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh

VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF AP and 7 Ors.

Represented by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111

2:THE UNION OF INDIA

Represented by Executive Engineer (T and C) Dept. of North Eastern Council Secretariat Nongrim Hills Shillong 793003

3:The Deputy Commissioner Pasighat Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Ruksin Sub Division Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

5:The Circle Officer

Bilat Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Executive Engineer PWD Division Pasighat Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.

7:M/s Puna Hinda

under the proprietorship of Shri Puna Hinda C/o Time Library Akash Deep Market Ganga Itanagar 791111 Arunachal Pradesh.

Page No.# 6/9

8:Yaken Talom ZPM 14 Mirem Zila East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh

Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. D. Soki, Addl. Sr.GA (AP) Mr. D. Kamduk, SC, Land Management Department, & Mr. M. Kato, Union of India

- B e f o r e

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE achintya malla bUJOR BARUA

DATE OF HEARING :- 16.08.2022

DATE OF JUDGEMENT :- 16.08.2022

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the Union of India representing the respondent No. 2.

The petitioners claim to be the indigenous people of Mirem village in the East Siang District, having private lands along the side of the Mirem-MikongJonai Road(Length 15.586 kms). The grievances are that the lands of the petitioners are being used in the construction of the Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(Length 15.586 Kms) without any acquisition proceeding being initiated. In the circumstance the petitioners instituted WP(C)414(AP)/2021, which was given a final consideration by an order dated 14.12.2021. In this respect the petitioners had also submitted a representation dated 17.09.2021, before the

Page No.# 7/9

Deputy Commissioner East Siang District. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.12.2021, is extracted as follows:-

“The petitioners contend that in the work to be executed by the respondent No.7, pursuant to the work order issued in terms of the NIT dated 13.11.2021, referred to hereinabove, the petitioners’ land, which are located in Mirem and Mekong village though likely to be affected, the State respondents, however, before awarding the work to the respondent No. 7, the land of the petitioners’ have not been acquired and consequently, no compensation have been paid to any of the petitioners. Aggrieved by such move of the State authorities, the petitioners had filed a representation on 17.09.2021, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, praying for payment of land compensation to the land affected parties, whose land would be affected on execution of rehabilitation and up-gradation of Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(L-15.568 Kms), as indicated hereinabove, but the same has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat. The petitioners, therefore, submits that the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners, within a specified time frame by passing a speaking order.”

A reading of the above extracted portion of the order dated 14.12.2021, makes it discernible that there was a requirement on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District to examine and verify from the records, as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are also included in the construction of the Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(Length 15.586 kms), and thereupon to pass a reasoned order on the matter, i.e., if the private lands of the petitioners are included for the purpose of construction of the road, such lands are to be acquired by following the due procedure of law. Accordingly, by the said order there was a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to give consideration to the representation dated 17.09.2021, which was submitted by

Page No.# 8/9

the petitioners. In response thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, have passed an order dated 24.12.2021, which is extracted as below:-

“Shri Wilson Jerang & 21 others present.

In compliance to Hon’ble Gauhati High Court Itanagar Permanent Bench Naharlagun order No. WP(C)414(AP)/2021, dated 14.12.2021, today the petition of dated 17.09.2021, submitted by Shri Wilson Jerang & 21 others heard. Shri Wilson Jerang submitted that they were not aware of Government notification and Gazette. Perused all records.

As per ADC Ruskin’s report, the widening of the road is within the notified ROW of 15.00 meters. As per the enquiry report of ADC the construction of road is within the ROW notified in the State gazette on 02.08.2021 by Commissioner PWD Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.

Also, a Public Representation was received from the Public of Bilat Circle, wherein ZPM, GPCs, Senior Public Leaders and GBs have signed that MMJ road construction is within the notified ROW area.

MMJ road seems to be lifeline of Ruskin sub-division and will enhance the quality of life of the residents will also smoothen the connectivity to Industrial Growth Center.

EE PW is directed to expedite the work

Given my hand and seal of the Court on this 24^th day of December 2021.”

After reading of the above extracted order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, makes it discernible that the requirement of the earlier order of this Court dated 14.12.2021, to examine as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are also included in the construction of the road had not been undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner merely refers to a report from the ADC Ruskin which provides that the notified ROW is 15.00 meters and therefore, the road construction is done within the ROW. The question for determination of the Deputy

Page No.# 9/9

Commissioner is not whether the construction of the road is within the ROW, but as to whether in the construction of the road, or as a matter of fact, the ROW, includes any private lands of the petitioners and if yes, to follow the due procedures of law for acquiring the land.

As the Deputy Commissioner had not examined the question, as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are included in the construction or in the ROW, we remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District to examine the question and pass a reasoned order thereof, as indicated above. The reasoned order be passed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Any construction of the road to be undertaken would be subject to the risk and cost of the State to the extent that, if ultimately, it is concluded that the private lands of the petitioners are included, the State would have to compensate the petitioners accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant