Disposed

Mai Rida and 5 Ors. v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2024WP(C)/393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court (ItanagAR Bench) disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage without independent adjudication as the same grievances were covered by a coordinate bench judgment dated 14.08.2024 in WP(C) 3/2023, and the bench extended similar relief to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Similar relief granted as in WP(C) 3/2023 judgment dated 14.08.2024.

Mai Rida and 5 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040011702024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/393/2024

¶5

Mai Rida and 5 Ors Son of Shri Mame Rida, resident of Tato, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Jeni Rida @ Jeny Heyo Age: Occupation :

¶6

3: Mane Diru Age: Occupation :

¶7

4: Jarter Hiba Age: Occupation :

¶8

5: Tako Pusang Age: Occupation : 6: John Hiba Age: Occupation

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Secretary/ Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation :

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

3:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : 5:The Director General Border Roads Age: 0 Occupation : 6:The Commanding Officer Age: 0 Occupation

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶15

B E F O R E

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶17

ORDER

¶18

06.09.2024

¶19

Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocdate General for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for profoma respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. B. Koyu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Management for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶22

On the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and with an agreement that the grievance of the petitioners raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 passed in a batch of writ petition leading being WP(C) 3/2023, this present writ petition is heard and disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶23

The petitioners claim to be the land owners and other assets on the area from Pene village to Tato, are aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation for houses and other assets. The rejection of the claim of the petitioners is on the ground that it violates the Public Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi dated 29.03.2021, wherein, it was notified that any construction after 31.01.2021 would not be considered while computing the compensation amount.

¶24

The authorities initiated an acquisition proceeding for construction of road from Pene village to Tato for which a notification was issued on 24.05.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi district under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya, Frontier Tract Jhumland Regulation, 1947.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioners that since the notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 24.05.2022, the ground of rejection of the claim of the petitioners that a Public Notice was issued on 29.03.2021 is not sustainable, as according to the petitioners any violation of such Public Notice must be anterior and not prior to notification for land acquisition dated 24.05.2022. It is not disputed that the public notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi district was on 29.03.2021 and the notification for

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

acquisition of the land was on 24.05.2022.

¶28

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records including the judgment and order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.08.2024, this Court is in complete agreement with the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench. The learned counsel for the parties are also in agreement with that the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 is squarely covered the grievances raised by the petitioners in the present petition.

¶29

In view of above, I am of the view that since the judgment and order dated 14.08.2024 is squarely covered with the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition without reiterating the findings of the Coordinate Bench to which this Court is in full agreement. Thus, similar relief be extended to the petitioners as has been granted by this Court to the petitioners of that case vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2024.

¶30

With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Mai Rida and 5 Ors. v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mai Rida and 5 Ors. v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ap and 3 Ors. Vs Ram Kino (Ex Hc)

M/s N T Agency Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Shri Kaling Saro Vs the State of A.P.

Mapikam Tega Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Sinsolum Awailiang and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Sinsolum Awailiang and 12 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.