THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shri Tunku Pulu - Appellant
Versus
National Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Nhpc Ltd.), - Respondent
WP(C) 230 / 2024, 242(AP)/2020
Decided On : 10-02-2025
(A) Balipara/Tirap/Sadia Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 - Section 10 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 23, 29, and 74 - State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 - Legality of compensation awarded for land acquisition challenged - The court found that the land was acquired under the 1947 Regulation but compensation was erroneously assessed under the RFCTLARR Act and State Policy, leading to an arbitrary award of 25% Net Present Value (NPV) - The court emphasized that the land in question was horticultural/agricultural and not forest land, thus the application of the State Policy was inappropriate - The court directed reassessment of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, ensuring compliance with all relevant provisions. (Paras 5 , 14 , 19 , 23 )
(B) Delay in filing writ petition - The court noted that while there was a delay in filing, it was reasonable given the circumstances, including prior petitions and the COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 16 .1, 16.4)
(C) The court ruled that the Cabinet decision regarding compensation for 'Jhum Land' did not apply as the land was not classified as such. (Paras 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024 and for respondent Nos.3 —11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for the petitioner in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020; Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel-cum- Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020.
2. As a common question of law is involved in these two writ petitions, being WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and as agreed upon by both the parties, it is proposed to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment and order.
3. It is to be noted here that in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, the petitioner, namely, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, (herein after NHPC Ltd.), has challenged the legality of the award dated 23.01.2019 pertaining to acquisition of 142.61 Ha of jhum land, situated under Koronu Circle at Bhismaknagar, Lower Dibang Valley District, by which a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- , being the compensation, has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.3-11, to be paid by the present petitioner(NHPC).
4. And in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, 7(seven) petitioners have prayed for directing the respondent authorities, to release and disburse the compensation awarded vide award dated 06.11.2018, which received approval from the Government vide communication dated 23.01.2019.
BACKGROUND FACTS:-
5. The background facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions are briefly stated as under:-
6. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 is that while acquiring the land, measuring 142.61 Ha, the respondent No.2 had applied three different modes, besides taking note of the Cabinet decision, dated 10.05.2018, in assessing the compensation. While the respondent authorities had acquired the land under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947, it had awarded compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and it had also applied the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008. The petitioner is aggrieved for application of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008.
THE GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING THE AWARD:-
T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and not under the State Rehabilitation Policy, as the land was not classified as forest land.
Section 31(2) of the Act requires the Collector to deposit the awarded amount in Court in case it is not received by the persons interested or there is some dispute. Under the said Act, the deposit i....
The court affirmed that awards under the Land Acquisition Act, once finalized, are binding, and the State must pay compensation despite challenges regarding land classification.
The court affirmed the obligation of the state to pay compensation for land acquisition as mandated by law, emphasizing the validity of the award and the constitutional right to property.
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 applies only to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to acquisitions initiated under any other Central or State enact....
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.
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where prior proceedings unde....
Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06.
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.