IMPORTANT POINT
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. I. Riam, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, eight petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.1, the Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District, to grant solatium @ 100% of the compensation amount and 12% interest per annum with effect from 10.08.2017 to 10.10.2018, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in terms of award dated 28.03.2013.

3. The background facts, necessary for proper appreciation of the dispute in the case in hand, are adumbrated here in below:-

“The respondent No.1 had acquired a plot of land measuring 51.38 hectors in Chimiri village and another plot of land measuring 48.73 hector in New Apali village (Pathar Camp), belonging to the petitioners in connection with Dibong Valley Multipurpose Project, under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for construction of office building, staff quarter, store buildings, labour camp etc. Then after compliance of all formalities, the respondent No.1 had passed award dated 28.03.2013, for a sum of Rs. 15,88,78,461/- in respect of both the plot of land. And the said award was approved by the Govt. vide letter dated 03.07.2013. But, no compensation was paid to the petitioners despite filing of several representations by them. As the representations have failed to evoke any response from the respondents, the petitioners have filed one Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 645(AP)/2017, before this Court. Then vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2018, this court was pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 & 4 to pay compensation amount along with interest as worked out and conveyed through his last letter dated 23.09.2016, and notified by the respondent No.1, within a period of six months of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order. Then pursuant to the order dated 23.01.2018, the revised compensation amount i.e. Rs. 24,66,58,811/- was disbursed and deposited in the account of the petitioners on 11.10.2018, however, with only 30 % solatium. Whereas, in the same project in Anini, where also land has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894, however, assessment and calculation of compensation for the land acquisition has been done in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 including solatium and interest. Again, in Roing, in connection with same project 100% solatium along with 12 % interest per annum with effect from 10.08.2017 to 10.10.2018 were paid to the land owners which is in sheer discrimination. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ or to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper.”

4. The respondents No. 3 & 4, on receipt of notice, entered appearance and submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that :-

(i) Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 23.01.2018, in WP (C) No. 645(AP) 2017, the respondent No.1 had calculated revised compensation of Rs. 24,66,58,811/ and paid the same on 11.10.2018, and as such, the said judgment order, had attained finality and as such there arose no cause of action for filing the present petition;

(ii) That, as the issue raised in this petition was directly and substantially was in issue in WP (C) No. 645(AP) 2017, between the same parties, and the petitioners have failed to raise such issue in the previous writ petition, the present petition is barred by doctrine of waiver, ac