Gauhati High Court Upholds Villagers' Right to Compensation for Transmission Line on Customary Land

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment concerning land rights in Arunachal Pradesh , has ruled that villagers are entitled to compensation for the construction of a high-voltage transmission line over their land, despite the state classifying the area as 'forest land'.

Justice Kardak Ete , presiding over the case Rekar Doye and 32 Ors. vs. The State of AP and 10 Ors. (WP(C)/416/2023), delivered the judgment on January 3, 2025, following a hearing on December 19, 2024. The ruling emphasizes the recognition of customary land ownership in Arunachal Pradesh and clarifies the applicable laws for compensation in such infrastructure projects.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by 33 residents from several villages in Lower Siang District , Arunachal Pradesh . They claimed individual and community ownership over approximately 11008 Ha of land, which they and their ancestors have occupied and cultivated since time immemorial, relying on customary rights recognized by various laws in the state.

The dispute arose when the Power Grid Corporation of India, in collaboration with the State Power Department, began gathering materials and commencing work for a 132 KV transmission line from Likabali to Niglok, which traversed the petitioners' land. The villagers contended this was done without formal acquisition, information, or compensation.

Upon enquiry and protest, the villagers were informed by authorities that their land fell under the proposed 'Dikari (Deka) Reserve Forest', based on a preliminary notification issued way back in 1975 under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.

The petitioners argued that this preliminary notification never reached finalization under Section 17, was opposed by villagers at the time, and had effectively lapsed or been abandoned by the authorities over the decades. They argued that their ownership and possession remained undisputed and that they could not be deprived of their land or have infrastructure built upon it without due process and fair compensation.

Arguments Presented

Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that while Power Grid has the power to lay lines under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Electricity Act, 2003 (specifically Section 10(d), Sections 67 & 68), these acts mandate the payment of full compensation for any damage sustained by land owners. He emphasized that the petitioners' title and ownership were clear, especially since the reserve forest proposal had lapsed. He pointed to a verification report by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Nari, confirming the area was not a declared reserve forest and was genuinely possessed by the public.

Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, acknowledged that the 1975 preliminary notification was never finalized and subsequent official communication in 1989 suggested keeping the process in abeyance due to public opposition. He also cited the ADC Nari's verification report and certifications from Forest Officers stating the transmission line stretch does not fall under a declared reserve forest. However, he maintained that the land still remains forest land in broader classification, though under genuine public possession. An assessment board had been constituted for damages.

Mr. N. Khera, learned Standing Counsel for Power Grid , argued that they were proceeding based on Central and State government approvals for diversion of the land (which they considered 'forest land') for the project. He clarified that Power Grid was not acquiring the land but merely exercising a 'Right of Way' (RoW) for which they were liable to pay compensation only for surface damage, trees, crops, and diminution of land value . He contended that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013) was not applicable to their work under the Electricity Act, 2003, citing Section 105 read with the Fourth Schedule of the 2013 Act. He accepted liability under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Electricity Act, 2003, subject to proper assessment and identification of rightful owners.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Ete noted the admitted facts: petitioners' residence and claimed ownership, the 1975 preliminary notification, and the failure to finalize it due to opposition. While acknowledging that orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time classify such areas as 'forest land', the court made a crucial distinction regarding Arunachal Pradesh .

The judgment observed: > "As per the order(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the land consists of the area remains the forest land. However, the State like Arunachal Pradesh has a peculiar system of ownership over the land customarily either by individually or community. On perusal of the records although various approvals have been granted by the different appropriate authorities for diversion of the said land for construction of 132 KV transmission line under comprehensive scheme, unless the land being owned by the people including the petitioners are notified as reserve forest, the right and title over the land by the people including the petitioners cannot be brushed aside."

The court placed reliance on the categorical statement of the ADC, Nari, and the verification report which concluded that there was no reserve forest in the area and that the land was under complete and genuine possession of the public. Based on this, the court held that the petitioners did indeed have title and ownership over the land, despite its classification as 'forest land' in the broader sense.

The judgment explicitly agreed with the respondents that the LARR Act, 2013, does not apply to the compensation payable for such works under the Electricity Act, 2003, as per Section 105 of the 2013 Act. However, it firmly established the petitioners' entitlement to compensation under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The court also took note of a significant notification issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on August 29, 2019, which adopted guidelines for compensating damages related to Right of Way (RoW) for transmission lines, specifying compensation rates based on land value for tower bases and diminution of land value within the RoW corridor. This notification, the court held, further fortified the petitioners' claim for compensation under the specific acts.

The Verdict and Implications

In allowing the writ petition, the Gauhati High Court directed the respondent authorities to:

Verify and assess the damages for compensation in terms of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Electricity Act, 2003, and the notification of the State of Arunachal Pradesh dated August 29, 2019, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Pay the assessed compensation/damages to the petitioners within a period not later than three months from the date of receipt of such assessment.

The court clarified that its observation on the petitioners' ownership rights for compensation purposes should not be construed as a declaration that the land is not 'forest land' in the context of Supreme Court rulings, maintaining a distinction between classification and the recognition of customary rights for the purpose of compensatory benefits in this specific project.

This judgment is significant as it reinforces the recognition of customary land rights and the right to compensation for indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh , even when infrastructure projects are carried out on land classified as 'forest land', provided the land has not been formally acquired or settled as a reserve forest, and is under genuine public possession. It mandates adherence to specific compensation mechanisms under sector-specific laws (Telegraph and Electricity Acts) and relevant state notifications for RoW use.