Disposed

Smti Lokam Yame v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2025WP(C)/435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation disputes and allegations of impersonation was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a reference application under Section 64 of the RTR Act, 2013 before the Collector within one week.

What did the court decide?

Stay of disbursement of compensation amount pending reference application under Section 64 of the RTR Act, 2013.

Smti Lokam Yame Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040015652025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/435/2025

¶5

Smti Lokam Yame

¶6

Wife of Shri Lokam Ranjit, a permanent resident of Damin Town, PO and PS Damin, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (Land Management) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶9

3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Kurung Kumey District Damin.

¶11

5:The District Land and Revenue Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

6:Lokam Totup Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Lokam Chair Damin Town PO Damin PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh 79111

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Y Mugli,Kirmani Lollen,Khoda Apa,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 10.09.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the official respondents. Having regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶20

2. It is the case of the petitioner that by way of a Gift Deed Agreement dated 30.08.2002, she has acquired a certain plot of land measuring approximately 2.5 Kms, located at Khami (near 39 KM BRO Road to Damin Huri), and the description of the said land has also been indicated in the Gift Deed Agreement. According to the petitioner, the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Frontier Highway by the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by issuing necessary notifications and declarations under the relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

2013, (for short, “the Act of 2013”). The name of the petitioner was also included at serial No.183 in the notification issued under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2013. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, her name has subsequently been replaced by the name of the private respondent No.6 in the final award made by the Collector concerned.

¶23

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that a settlement agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondent No.6 for apportionment of the compensation amount in two equal shares, in terms of the judgment passed by the Mel (village authority), Koloriang on 06.05.2025. However, since the respondent No.6 refused to share 50% of the compensation amount by dishonoring the judgment passed by the Mel, the petitioner on 05.06.2025, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Kurung Kumey District, Kolorinag, to withhold the disbursement of the compensation amount to the respondent No.6. The petitioner, apprehending that despite the request made to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, the amount may still be disbursed to the respondent No. 6, is before this Court.

¶24

4. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 has in fact impersonated himself to be Shri Lokam Totup, whereas according to the information received by the petitioner, Shri Lokam Totup had already expired on 09.06.2023. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Death Certificate issued by Niba Hospital, Naharlagun, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-14.

¶25

5. It is, however, seen that Section 64 of the Act of 2013, provides for a reference to the authority. It stipulates that any person interested who has not

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, as regard objection to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Section 64(2)(b) of the Act of 2013, provides that the application to be made shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application is made within six weeks of receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period expires first.

¶28

6. Having regard to the said provisions, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court, the petitioner should approach the Collector concerned by filing appropriate application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, within a period of 1(one) week from today. Upon receipt of such application, the Collector shall process the application in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, for further necessary action.

¶29

7. It is also provided herein that if the issue of limitation arises, the Collector shall take into account the representation submitted by the petitioner on 05.06.2025 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) as an application for reference and proceed accordingly.

¶30

8. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order, a copy of the writ petition with annexures along with her reference application to the Collector concerned for the needful. It is further provided herein that till such reference is made before the Reference Court, the amount assessed under the final award in

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

respect of Serial No.194 thereof, amounting to Rs.22,663.093/- shall not be disbursed.

¶33

9. Further, once the reference application is taken up for consideration, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek further interim protection, if so advised, which shall be considered by the said authorities in accordance with law.

¶34

10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Smti Lokam Yame v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Lokam Yame 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti.Phefot Baham Vs The State of Ap and 3 Others

M/s United Pisa Construction and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

M/s Sera Agency and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Kime Kaing Vs The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and 2 Ors.

M/s North India Engineering Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Debia Tama Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.