THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (Itanagar Permanent Bench at Yupia)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ
Tenken Nada S/o Bomten Nada And 31 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 6 Ors - Respondent
WA 23 / 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) Intra Court Appeal - Writ Petition - Compensation for land submerged under Subansiri Hydro Power Project - The appellants, project affected families, claimed compensation for land submerged, while two individuals from their village received compensation - The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the Loss Assessment Report lacked technical expertise and the appellants failed to prove their claims. (Paras 4 , 6 , 31 )
(B) Legal Standing - The court affirmed that the Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final and exhaustive, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reassess land without a competent authority's request. (Paras 28 , 31 )
(C) Doctrine of Election - The court held that appellants who accepted compensation cannot make further claims, as they are bound by their prior acceptance. (Paras 33 )
Facts of the case:
The appellants, project affected families from Dibe village, claimed compensation for land submerged by the Subansiri Hydro Power Project, while two individuals from their village received compensation. The learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petition, citing lack of evidence and jurisdictional issues.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's findings that the Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final and that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to reassess the land.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Loss Assessment Report, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to reassess land, and the applicability of the doctrine of election to the appellants' claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Loss Assessment Report had not been challenged and thus attained finality, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to order a re-assessment. The appellants' acceptance of prior compensation barred them from making further claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, partly physically and partly through video conferencing mode, assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on call for respondent nos.1 and 5. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3; and Ms. R. Basar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7.
2. This intra Court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 674(AP)/2017. The appellants were the petitioners in the said writ petition.
Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants:
3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the voluminous documents appended to the memo of appeal as well as on the affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and has advanced extensive submissions on behalf of the appellants.
4. It was submitted that a large volume of land is under submergence zone for construction of the Subansiri Hydro Power Project (SHPP for short), which is undertaken by the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC for short). The appellants are the project affected families (PAFs for short) of Dibe village. It was submitted that two persons from Dibe village of the appellants were awarded compensation as PAFs, but no compensation was assessed and/or awarded for any of the 32 (thirty two) appellants herein.
5. It was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had constituted a Board consisting of (i) the EAC-cum-Nodal Officer (respondent no.7), (ii) HDO, Likabali/Gensi, (iii) ADO, Gensi, (iv) RFO, Gensi, (v) one representative from NHPC, and (vi) Mr. Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo. The said Board had made field enquiry and found that the land of the appellants fell within the submergence zone. Thereafter, the authorities assessed the compensation payable to the appellants. It was submitted that not only the NHPC authorities had refused to participate in the re-assessment process undertaken by the said Board, but also rejected the recommended a sum of Rs.79,87,44,640/- as compensation for the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants have filed the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) 674(AP)/2017.
6. It was submitted that the judgment in the appeal has been assailed, amongst others, on the ground that the learned Single Judge had held that the Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014, prepared by the Board wherein 615 Ha (Hectare) land had been identified as land of Dibe village that was falling under the submergence area and had lacked technical expertise.
7. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants were summarized as under:-
8. In support of above, it was elaborated that two persons from the appellants’ village were paid compensation, but the respondent nos.2 and 3 do not say why land of two persons of the village
The Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reassess land for compensation claims.
Point of Law : Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon (sic open) -....
An admission must be categorical and unconditional to constitute a basis for a judgment on admission.
The Claims Commission lacks authority to modify compensation rolls approved by the Supreme Court, particularly for structures built after the cut-off date, unless supported by authenticated evidence ....
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 upheld the compensation for property damage caused by excavation, emphasizing the need for accurate valuation and just compensation for losses incurred.
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.