IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
The Union Of India and 3 Ors – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Mihu, S/o Shri M. Mihu and 4 Ors – Respondents
WA 9 of 2021
Decided on : 31-03-2022
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 36 – RFCT LARRA, 2013 – Section 40, 30, 21, 23 – Nature of Certiorari – Claim Compensation – Quashing and setting aside impugned cancellation order – Held, Court are providing opportunity of hearing in as much as court have not arrived at any conclusion that acquisition proceeding that was done so rightly under Act of 2013 or it was required to have been continued under Jhum Regulation, 1947, which again prescribes for a different sets of law – Therefore, requirement of this order may be a slight deviation from the requirement of both Jhum Regulation, 1947 and Act of 2013, but are of view taken may ends of justice of both land owners as well as Defence Estate authorities – Court further provide that in event, a decision of authorities in Government of India, Ministry of Defence is to acquire land in a permanent manner, a fresh requisition proceeding be initiated under provision of law by recalling the all other notifications and communications that were issued in earlier process and same be also brought to its logical as expeditiously as possible and in that event, till such acquisition proceeding, if any is initiated, authorities in Government of India, Ministry of Defence shall continue to pay rent applicable to petitioner – Requirement of passing reasoned order be done within a period of 2 (two) months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Bujor Barua, J.
Heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Geeta Mihu and Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Although the Major, Quartermaster for CO, 19 JAK RIF, 99 APO is arrayed as respondent 5 in this appeal, Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to delete the said respondent. Accordingly, the respondent no.5 stands deleted.
2. The writ petitioner, Geeta Mihu, a resident of Koyla Basti village in the Dibang Valley district had instituted WP(C) 511(AP)/2019 with the following prayers:
“I. A writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 12.12.2019 issued by the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar whereby the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 issued for acquisition of land measuring 105.144 acres situated at Koyla basti/village of Dibang Valley District for the Indian Army has been cancelled in violation of Section in violation of Section 36 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in violation of Principle of natural justice
II. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the concerned respondent authority most particularly the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 to immediately pay/deposit before the Deputy Commissioner, Anini the land compensation award amounting to Rs.25,01,97,399/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crore One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Nine) only against the petitioner’s land measuring 1.5.144 acres situated at Koyla (Karu) village of Dibang Valley District acquired for the Indian Army under Section 23 of the RFCT LARRA, 2013 vide award order no. DV/LM171/18-19 dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini. Further along with additional compensation amount of 75% of the total compensation amount award in terms of section 40(5) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 along with interest accrued thereon for onward payment/disbursement to the petitioner
And/or
Pass such other order/orders or direction as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. A reading of the prayer goes to show that an order dated 12.12.2019 of the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh is sought to be set aside. By the said order dated 12.12.2019, the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 had been cancelled. The order dated 12.12.2019 had been assailed on the ground of it being passed in violation of section 36 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act of 2013) as well as in violation of principles of natural justice. The second prayer is for a payment of Rs.25,01,97,399/-, being the land compensation award that was arrived at in the resultant land acquisition proceeding.
4. The order dated 12.12.2019 is a communication from the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district providing the approval of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for cancellation of the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 in respect of the land measuring 105.144 acres for establishment of Army Post at Koyla Basti village in the Dibang Valley district.
5. The notification dated 08.03.2019 is of the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued under section 40 of the Act of 2013 notifying that the land measuring 105.144 acres mentioned therein is urgently needed for establishment of Army Post keeping in view security of the country.
6. Section 40 of the Act of 2013, inter ali
The obligation of the State to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the deprivation of property, as per the Constitution and relevant statutes.
Point of law : Section 11 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 prescribes for publication of preliminary notification. There i....
The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, is not a forum for adjudicating disputed questions of fact. When the validity of land acquisition and the payment of compensation....
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.