ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, the Ministry of Defence and other Army Authorities are aggrieved by judgments dated 18.12.2019, 16.11.2022, and 09.03.2023, passed by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench. Vide the first judgement, the High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the private respondents with a direction to initiate acquisition of the subject land. Vide the second judgment, the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal against the first judgement on the ground of delay and laches. The final order dated 09.03.2023 eventually turns down the Review Petition filed by the appellants.

3. Respondent Nos.1-24 belong to the community which own the land in villages Bona and Mayum, near the 'Line of Actual Control' in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Indian Army took possession of 73.96 acres of land in village Bona and 81 acres of land in village Mayum on 01.01.2010 for construction of various facilities near the border. The possession was taken in purported exercise of powers under Section 3 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Section 3 of the aforesaid Act empowers the Competent Authority to requisition any property which, in its opinion, is needed for any public purpose of the Union of India.

4. Section 4 of the Act vests power in the Competent Authority to take physical possession of the property, which has been requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act.

5. Thereafter, Section 5 enables the Authorities to use the properties for such purposes as may be mentioned in the notice of requisition.

6. In the instant case, we are concerned about the issue that revolves around Section 8 of the Act. The said provision outlines the principles and method of determining compensation for the land which has been requisitioned, or which may have subsequently been acquired.

7. As can be seen from a reading of the statute, the possession of the subject land, taken over by our Armed Forces, is statutorily protected under Section 3 of the Act. The statutory scheme contemplates that the aggrieved owners can seek compensation for their requisitioned property, which is to be assessed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Section 8 of the Act.

8. According to learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the appellants, compensation payable to the respondents in lieu of possession of their land has been assessed from time to time by the Collector of the area and such compensation has been regularly paid for the requisitioned property.

9. It seems that respondent Nos.1-24, who belong to the community in whom the land statedly vests, were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation. They have been, accordingly, running from pillar to post for impressing upon the Union of India "to acquire" the subject land. In other words, the respondents have been making efforts that instead of invoking powers under the 1952 Act for requisition of the property, the same may be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the passage of time, and as a result of repealing of the 1894 Act, the respondents have substituted their demand, now seeking acquisition of their land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act").

10. It is in this backdrop that a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an order, dated 18.12.2019, which suggests that efforts were made for mutual settlement between the parties,