Point of Law: There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in Regulation of 1947, whereas same is available in RFCT & LARR Act.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3; Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 4.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri Kampu Dolo @ Kompu Dolohas prayed for directing the respondent authorities to pay 100% solatium and 12% interest upon the compensation amount of Rs. 1,54,94,094/- (One Crore Fifty-Four Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand Ninety-Four) for the land acquire by the respondent authorities from him under section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Lang Regulation, 1947.

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

“A plot of land situated at Chayangtajo, of East Kameng District, belonging to the petitioner was identified and acquired under section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Lang Regulation, 1947 (herein after Regulation, 1947). The petitioner though filed a representation for acquiring the said land under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after Act of 2013). Yet, the respondent authorities have not entertained the same. Thereafter, a Board, constituted and headed by respondent No. 1, has examined and assessed the value of the land and property of the petitioner falling in the earmarked site and after threadbare discussion, in its meeting held on 03.12.2021, calculated the land compensation amount at Rs. 1,73,76,091/- and thereafter, sent the same to the respondent No. 4 for approval. However, the respondent No. 4 having found the rate in higher side asked the respondent No. 3 for further negotiation. Thereafter, in a meeting held on 21.01.2022, settlement was arrived at Rs. 1,54,94,094/- and incorporating the contingency charge, the amount came to be at Rs. 1,59,53,731.92/- (One Crore Fifty-Nine Lakh Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-One Point Ninety-Two). Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 had deposited the said amount, by way of Demand Draft No. 801580 dated 01.07.2022, for the aforesaid amount with the respondent No. 3, for disbursement. However, objection has been raised by respondent No. 2, the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Thereafter, the petitioner personally approached the respondent No. 3 to know about the ground of objection wherein the respondent No. 3 stated to him that no file in the department gets approved for free, more particularly in cases of land compensation and thereby indicated clearly that the file will not be cleared without payment. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Chief Secretary against the respondent No. 2 on 07.12.2022. Thus, the right the petitioner under Article 300(A) of Constitution of India, stands violated. Therefore, he approached this court for issuing the direction to the respondent authorities to release the aforesaid compensation amount by filing a writ petition being WP (C) No. 55/2023. In the present petition he prayed for directing the respondent authorities to pay 100% solatium and 12% interest upon the aforesaid compensation amount.”

4. The respondent No. 4 had entered and appearance and filed written affidavit in opposing statement wherein it had been stated that the amount of land compensation has already been deposited by a demand draft in favor of the respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng district Seppa.

5. The respondent No. 2 in its affidavit in opposition dated 23.05.2023, has stated that the land compensation amount has not been deposited in the account of the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng district Seppa and that no confirmation of transfer of land from ITBP was received by his office.

6. Mr. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner s