Disposed¶37

Kukpa Serthipa v. The State of Ap and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Apr 2025WP(C)/73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ petition - land acquisition notification not yet issued; Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench), WP(C)/73/2025, decided 03.04.2025 by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana; Kukpa Serthipa v. The State of AP and 8 Ors; highway widening near Chainage 173.450 KM, Dirang village, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh; valuation of Rs.11,90,700/- challenged; procedure under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 sought; Jhum Land Regulation (Amended) 2024 referenced; ADC Dirang letter dated 27.02.2025; petition closed with liberty to re-approach; Article 226 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as premature, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if still aggrieved by any action initiated in respect of his land ¶37

Kukpa Serthipa Vs The State of Ap and 8 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed as premature, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if still aggrieved by any action initiated in respect of his land

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the valuation of the petitioner's properties at Rs.11,90,700/- and initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is premature, the acquisition notification having not yet been issued

¶22

Court's answer

The notification for land acquisition has not yet been issued and the authorities have not even decided as to which Act will be applied for acquisition of the land

¶34

Ratio / Principle

As on date the writ petition is premature; accordingly it stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if he is still aggrieved by any action that may be initiated in respect of his land

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a landowner of Driang village, West Kameng District, whose land and building near 173.450 KM of Dirang village were apprehended to be affected by highway widening, seeking initiation of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and quashing of the respondent authorities' valuation of his properties at Rs.11,90,700/-. The State produced an instruction letter dated 27.02.2025 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dirang, stating that the lands at Chainage No.173.540 km had not been assessed under the 2013 Act, that valuations were yet to be finalized, and that neither the acquisition notification had been issued nor had the authorities decided which Act (Jhum Land Regulation (Amended) 2024 or the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013) would apply. Holding the petition premature, the Court closed it with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if still aggrieved by any action initiated in respect of his land.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040002592025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/73/2025

¶5

Kukpa Serthipa

¶6

Son of Late Ley Khandu, permanent resident of Driang village, PO and PS Dirang, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 790101

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 8 Ors represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 7911112:The Deputy Commissioner

¶9

Age: 0 Occupation : Bomdila PO and PS Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790101

¶10

3:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Dirang PO and PS Dirang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790101

¶11

4:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Assessment Board for Chainage 173.450 KM represented by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Dirang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790101

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

5:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790001 6:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Ministry of Defense Sena Bhavan Govt of India New Delhi 110011 7:The Directorate General of Border Roads Age: 0 Occupation : Naraina Kirby Place Delhi Cantonment New Delhi Delhi 110028 8:The Commander Age: 0 Occupation : 42 border Roads Task Force C/o 99 APO Headquarter Sapper Camp Dirang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790101 9:The Officer in Command Age: 0 Occupation : 97 Road Construction Company (RCC) C/o 99 APO Munna Camp Diang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 79010

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Binter Picha, Gegum Lollen,Tao Tarin,Jumgam Jini

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), KeekeLoya,DSGI,Marto Kato

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 03.04.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶21

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has land and building near 173.450 KM of Dirang village, has expressed his apprehension that his land and properties may be affected by the Highway widening. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the event the petitioner’s land is earmarked for extension of the highway, the land acquisition process should be initiated by the respondent authorities. It is also projected that in the meanwhile, the respondent authorities have valued the properties of the petitioner at a sum of Rs.11,90,700/-(Rupees Eleven lakh ninety thousand seven hundred only). The petitioner prays for quashing the said valuation report on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be followed.

¶22

3. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents has produced a copy of instruction vide letter dated 27.02.2025, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dirang, West Kameng District and it is submitted that the present writ petition is premature because the acquisition notification has not yet been issued.

¶23

4. The content of the said letter No.DRG/LR-10(Pt-III)/2021-2022/8359-60 dated 27.02.2025 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶24

Page No.# 4/5

¶25

“….Sir/Madam,

¶26

With reference to the above subject and the letter under reference, I am directed to state the following:

¶27

The lands/properties of the petitioners located at Chainage No.173.540 km were not assessed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

¶28

Valuations of the land of the petitioners are yet to be finalized under the said Act.

¶29

Actual valuation will be subject to the appropriate notification applied for the same, whether to be acquired under the provisions of Jhum Land Regulation (Amended) 2024 or the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 may be directed by the competent authority

¶30

The acquisition process may be initiated after direction from competent authority based on the appropriate requisition for acquisition and under the relevant Act from the Acquiring Agency.

¶31

This is for your information and further necessary action please.

¶32

S/d-(Hage Tarung) ADC

¶33

West Kameng District”

¶34

5. The contents of the said letter refers to the fact that the notification for land acquisition has not yet been issued and the authorities have not even decided as to which Act will be applied for acquisition of the land.

¶35

6. Under such circumstances, as on date, this present writ petition is

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

premature. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again, if he is still aggrieved by any action that may be initiated in respect of his land.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Kukpa Serthipa v. The State of Ap and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kukpa Serthipa v. The State of Ap and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tayum Roma Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ramniwas Roj Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mitum Gamlin Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

M/s Cherom Trading Company Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Dor Tsering Merakpa Vs The State of Ap and 8 Ors.

M/s Jj Enterprise Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.