IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of Jhum land – Phrase “reasonable compensation” is an open-textured expression, designed to confer flexibility – It cannot be read as permitting compensation which is merely notional or arbitrary.
(2) Solatium and interest are not alien imports but integral components of fairness.
(3) Right to property, though no longer fundamental, is nonetheless a constitutional right which cannot be divested save by authority of law, and such deprivation must meet tests of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The core controversy in the instant set of appeals concerns the purported legal dissonance between two Statutes, both of which inter alia provide for land acquisition by the State authorities. While on the one hand is the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (hereinafter, ‘1947 Regulations’), a pre-independence legislation governing the acquisition of ‘Jhum’ lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh; on the other are the settled land laws prevailing in the rest of the country, i.e. either the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, ‘1894 Act’) or its successor-statue, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘2013 Act’).

3. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and its Authorities are before us in appeal against the judgment and final order dated 12.09.2022, passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) with respect to the validity of the compensation provided for acquisition of certain ‘Jhum’ lands, undertaken under the provisions of the 1947 Regulations.

4. The High Court has, vide the impugned judgment, inter alia held that the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act function in distinct legislative spheres, and are therefore not repugnant to each other under Article 254 of the Constitution. It has also upheld the learned Single Judge’s finding that the appellant- authorities must provide solatium and interest to the respondents as per the scheme of the 2013 Act.

5. Before proceeding with adjudication on merits, it is apposite to briefly explicate the facts, which are broadly admitted. The lands of the private-respondents were notified to be acquired on 17.02.2014, in a Notification issued under Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations. Notably, these lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Trans-Arunachal-Highway (hereinafter, ‘TAH’) along the Potin–Bopi (Godak) corridor.

6. The estimates for compensation were drawn up by the concerned Departments, and communicated to the relevant landowners. Pertinently, no solatium or additional interest formed part of these calculations. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents made representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. These representations were negatived by the Authority, citing Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations as a provision which merely necessitates “reasonable compensation”, and no other statutory benefit.

7. The private-respondents thereafter approached the High Court seeking the benefits provided under the 2013 Act’s acquisition mechanism. However, the High Court relegated them to the statutory remedy of appealing before the State Governor, postulated under Section 17 of the 1947 Regulations. By order dated 14.08.2020, the Governor was pleased to reject their appeal, holding that since the acquisition was effected under the 1947 Regulations, there would be no applicability of the 2013 Act.

8. Still aggrieved, the respondents again approached the High Court assailing the Governor’s rejection. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed this Writ Petition vide order dated 25.04.2022, reasoning that the State’s laws cannot be repugnant to the Central legislation and they are, to that extent, void. Thus, while the acquisition under the 1947 Regulations was held to be valid, its compensation was ordered to be calculated as per the model laid down in the 2013 Act. Accordingly, the High Court allowed for grant of the statutory benefits as prayed for by the respondents.

9. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and its authorities, i.e. the appellants, challenged this finding through intra-Court appeals, before a Division Bench of the High Court. As already noticed hereinabove, the High Court has partly allowed these appeals in a common judgment and order. The Division Bench modified the earlier order to the extent of holding that the 1947 Regulations a