IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the principle of res judicata, ruling that the appellants could not challenge the finality of the Land Acquisition Award in subsequent petitions.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Marto Kato, learned DGSI, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 and Mr. Dugmar Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2; in both these writ appeals; as well as Mr. Rituraj Biswas, learned counsel, along with Mr. Sunil Mow, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4, 5 & 6, in WA No. 41 (AP) 2022 and for respondents No. 8, 9 & 10, in WA No. 42 (AP) 2022; as well as Mr. Rintu Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 7, 8, 9 & 10; in WA No. 41 (AP) 2022 and for respondents No. 4, 5, 6 & 7, in WA No. 42 (AP) 2022.

2. The present intra-Court appeals have been instituted by the appellants, raising a grievance against the order, dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in IA (C) 117 (AP) 2022 [in WP (C) 211 (AP) 2022] along with WP (C) 190 (AP) 2022 and WP (C) 211 (AP) 2022.

3. The issue arising in the present appeals was a subject-matter of earlier proceedings instituted before this Court by and between the parties and the issue involved, had received a consideration and as noticed in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, referred to above, has attained its finality. Accordingly, the litigational history would be required to be noted before the examining the order, dated 08.09.2022, impugned in the present proceeding.

4. The private respondents in the appeal, had instituted proceedings before this Court, assailing the allotment of their lands, to the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in various areas falling under Dibang Valley District. The plots of land was initially occupied by the Assam Rifles and in the year 2005, the said plots of land were handed over to the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). The writ petitions so instituted by the private respondents, herein, were WP (C) 11 (AP) 2017; WP (C) 74 (AP) 2017; WP (C) 77 (AP) 2017; WP (C) 78 (AP) 2017 and WP (C) 79 (AP) 2017.

5. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the issues involved; disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions vide separate orders, all, dated 18.01.2017, directing the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, to cause an inquiry into the matter as to whether the land occupied by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), were community land or government land. After the passing of the said order, dated 18.01.2017, and the processing as mandated for the purpose; the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a Notification, dated 24.04.2018, for acquisition of the lands, under the provisions of Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; for setting-up of Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Border Outpost at Anini, Dembeun, Mipi and Maliney villages under Dibang Valley District.

6. On conclusion of the proceeding mandated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in pursuance of the issuance of the Notification, dated 24.04.2018, under Section 11 of the said Act of 2013; the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, proceeded to issue a Land Acquisition Award under Section 23 of the said Act of 2013, vide Notification, dated 06.09.2018. The award so issued had attained its finality in terms of the provisions of Section 37 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7. The Land Acquisition Award although being issued, the consequential payments not being released; the private respondents, herein, approached the writ Court by way of instituting WP (C) 281 (AP) 2019 and WP (C) 274 (AP) 2019, inter alia, praying for release of the awarded amount, by contending that the Land Acquisition Award as passed by the jurisdictional D