Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Department, being the respondent No. 1, Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. As many as 30 petitioners of Jempen Sub-Clan of the Saji Clan, have approached this Court by filing the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Secretary, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highyway, Govt. of India, to pay the petitioners the land compensation, amounting Rs.12,43,32,225/- (Rupees twelve crore forty three lakh thirty two thousands two hundred and twenty five) only, along with solatium and interest thereon.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated here-in-below:

“By a Notification, No. LM/ACO/199/2020, dated 09.02.2021, the land belonging to the Saji Clan was acquired by the respondent authorities under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred as ‘Regulation of 1947’), for construction of road from Tadadege to Henkar of Shi-Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the compensation, amounting to Rs.24,86,64,450/- (Rupees twenty four crore eighty six lakh sixty four thousands four hundred and fifty) only, were assessed, excluding the exigency charge, to acquire the aforesaid land and the same was deposited in the joint account of the Deputy Commissioner and the DLRSO, Shi Yomi Tato.

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the land so acquired, belongs to Saji Clan and it is divided by to Sub-Clans i.e. Jendu and Jempen and thereafter, aforesaid Sub-Clans arrived at an agreement to share the compensation @ 50:50 basis. The petitioners herein are belonging to Jempen Clan and there share of compensation is quantified at Rs.12,43,32,225/- only, and the amount has not paid to them.

Further case of the petitioners are that upon the aforesaid amount of compensation, they are also entitled to 100% solatium, amounting to Rs.24,86,64,450/- including the interest thereon.”

4. The respondent No. 2 has submitted an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the compensation has already been disbursed to the Jempen Sub-Clan, on the basis of a Power of Attorney, submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District by one Sri Tagam Jempen and Sri Tashi Pujen, on behalf of their respective Sub-Clan and at present no such compensation is pending, to be paid to the petitioners and others. But, unfortunately the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 is silent about the claim of solatium and interest, which are being prayed for in this petition.

5. The other respondents have not submitted their affidavit-in-opposition.

6. Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though an issue of releasing the compensation amount of Rs.12,43,32,225/- has been raised, yet, the primary prayer of the petitioners in this petition is to issue direction to the respondent authorities to pay 100% solatium, with interest thereon. Mr. Taffo further submits that the issue of payment of solatium has been settled by this Court in the WP (C) No. 280/2020 (Sri Mihin Laling vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others) and to other connected Writ Petitions, wherein direction has been issued at paragraph 55 and 56, to pay solatium and interest to the petitioners of the said case and the said judgment is upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 15/2022, and as the matter has already been settled, the case of the present petitioners are squarely covered by the aforesaid proposition of law and therefore, Mr. Taffo contended to allow the petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing coun