IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Tashi Pujen, S/o. Lt. Tabin Pujen and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union Of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.258 Of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Land Compensation - Land Occupation by Armed Forces - Section 80 CPC - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioners, representing their respective clans, handed over their land to the 11th Assam Rifle (AR) in 1962 for defense purposes. The land was later handed over to the 20th Bn./ITBP without compensation or rent. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the land was occupied by the AR and later by the ITBP, and directed a joint survey to ascertain the actual area of land occupied and determine the rent/compensation owed to the petitioners. [ISSUES] Whether the land was handed over to the 11th AR for defense purposes in 1962 and if the petitioners are entitled to compensation/rent for the land occupied by the AR and ITBP. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court's decision was based on the lack of written agreement of land occupation in 1962 and the disputed questions of fact regarding the occupation of the land. [FINAL DECISION] The petition was allowed, and the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were directed to conduct a joint survey with ITBP officials to ascertain the actual area of land being occupied and determine the rent/compensation owed to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos. 1 – 5 & 9. None appears for the rest of the respondents.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners namely, Shri Tashi Pujen and Shri Tagam Jenpen, have prayed for issuing the direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the land compensation/rent amount for the land in question, for the period from 1962 to till date.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below :-
4. The respondent No. 7, the Deputy Commissioner of West Siang, Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh and the respondent No. 8, the District land & Revenue Settlement Officer, West Siang, Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh, have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that strict proof is required to substantiate the claim of the petitioners and in view of the letter of the respondent No. 9, dated 25.09.2022, the petitioners/owners are not entitle for any compensation as prayed in the writ petition.
5. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 9 have failed to file their affidavit-in-opposition inspite of getting sufficient opportunities.
6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have handed over the possession of their land to 11th AR in the year 1962, on being approached by the
Petitioners are entitled to rental compensation for unauthorized occupation of land by the Indian Army from 1980 to 2021, to be assessed and disbursed by the Deputy Commissioner.
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....
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
Traditional land ownership rights in Arunachal Pradesh must be acknowledged, and mere possession is insufficient to establish ownership without considering customary practices.
Where the deprivation of property without sanction of law is admitted and clearly established, there is no difficulty in applying above principle and, as such, a petition for compensation cannot be d....
The court emphasized the right to rental compensation for land occupied by security forces, mandating assessment and payment within a specified timeframe, following precedent.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
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.