Back
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Mihin Laling – Respondent
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 judgm
(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 ....
Concluded acquisitions under the old regulation preclude reopening for additional compensation, including Solatium, after acceptance of initial compensation.
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 applies only to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to acquisitions initiated under any other Central or State enact....
Petitioners are entitled to compensation and solatium and interest in view of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as State cannot make any law in derogation of any provision of said Act.
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
The Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is inapplicable due to lack of Presidential assent, and compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
