SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 954

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Cholingso Kora Son of Late Torelum Kora - Appellant
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 557 Of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Keprunda Mena, Sabda R Rabha,Eddie Payeng,Kamal Saxena,Chanya Bangsia,C Tenzin,Tapi Nguki,Reken Ingo,Tado Siga,Ebo Mili,Aruna Rai,Madan Mili,Sonam Tsomo,k N Maling,Sunil Mow
For the Respondent: Marto Kato, SC (Land Management),Dugmar Kamduk,DSGI

Possession of land without legal authority by state entities necessitates acquisition or compensation, respecting the customary rights of indigenous communities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari regarding illegal occupation of community land by ITBP and seeking compensation for land taken without authority. (Paras 1, 20)

(B) Land Acquisition - Legal status - The Court determined that the ITBP's possession of land was illegal and required either acquisition under the applicable land acquisition laws or payment of compensation for the illegal occupancy. (Paras 25, 27)

(C) Compensation for community land - The Court affirmed the entitlement of the villagers to compensation for 96.977 Hectares of Unclassed State Forest land as their customary rights were recognized, requiring adequate compensation aligned with the R&R Policy of 2008. (Paras 10, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant represented the villagers whose land was taken by ITBP without lawful authority. Despite multiple representations for compensation or return of the land, no action was taken by authorities. (Paras 2, 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the ITBP's claim of possession lacked legal foundation and ordered a reassessment of compensation or acquisition procedures. (Paras 25, 27)

Issues: The Court primarily addressed the legality of ITBP's possession and the villagers' entitlement to compensation for USF land. (Paras 25, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that possession without acquisition is illegal, emphasizing the need for due process in land acquisition and compensation, and underscored the rights of indigenous communities over their customary lands. (Paras 21, 24)

Result: Writ petition allowed, requiring ITBP to either acquire the land legally or compensate the community.

Table of Content
1. background regarding land possession and community claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding land rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's observation on compensation and illegal possession. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. direction by the court for resolving land possession issues. (Para 27)
5. conclusion and ruling of the court. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers.

“I. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/ or Certiorari and/ or any other appropriate order or direction to the official respondents, namely, Union of India through the Department of Defence and Indo Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter referred to as “ITBP through the Commandant 9th Bn ITBP to take appropriate steps and regularize their illegal possession over the petitioner’s land by means of land acquisition under the RFCT Act, 2013 or in the alternative to vacate the land and pay damages/compensation for illegal occupation of petitioner’s land.

2. The petitioner has been presented by one petitioner in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Lohitpur village in the District of Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh. The members belong to Tindya, Kathak, Tamai and Boo clans and the petitioner has also annexed power of Attorneys to represent themselves in the present petition.

3. As per the projected case of the petitioner, from the time of their ancestors, they were in possession of an area of land out of which 96.97 Hectares was taken over possession by the Assam Rifles Battalion during the 1950’s. It is the specific case of the petitioner that such taking over possession was without any authority of law. Subsequently, the land was taken over by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) who is under illegal occupation. It has been stated that though the camp of the ITBP stretches to a total area of 145.41 HA, out of the same, 48.44 Hectare is reserved land and the remaining 96.97 HA is Unclassed State Forest Land (USF) which is the community land of the villagers.

4. The villagers have been representing before the authorities on numerous occasions for payment of adequate compensation but no heed has been paid to. In all such representations, it was specifically prayed that either the adequate compensation be paid to the villagers or the land be vacated and peaceful possession of the same be handed over to the villagers.

5. As the representations were not given any heed to, numerous applications under the RTI Act were submitted seeking specific information. For ready reference, the replies given on various dates are extracted hereinbelow:-

“(i) 12.02.2024:-It was replied that the land under occupation ITBP at Lohitpur is not allotted to the user agency as on date;

(ii) 09.09.2024:-

(a) the land occupied by the 9th ITBP at Lohitpur was diverted in favour of 2nd A/R Vide No.FOR.8-56/99-FC dated 05.03.2022 for an area of 14541 Hectare as per below land breakup;

(b) The 9th BN ITBP is situated in RF for 48.433 Hectare in Udiomajam RF and 96.977 Hectare in US area, i.e. outside RF area;

©Yes, the 145.41 Hectare was diverted in favour of 2nd AR & later on transferred in favour of 9th BN ITBP vide No.8-56/1999-FC (Pt) dated 07.07.2015.

(iii)15.10.2024:-

(a)Notification of Denning RF and Udiomajam are enclosed;

(b)This information may be sought from DFO, Lohit. Hence, RTI application is transferred under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 to Divisional Forest Officer, Lohit Forest Division, Tezu for providing information to the applicant.

©No, the USF is not notified.

(d)NIL.

(iv)24.10.2024:-

(a)Notification of Udiomajam a Denning RF enclosed;

(b)Maps of Udiomajam a Denning RF enclosed;

©No USF area has been notified in this division;

(d)No de reservation of Udiomajam RF and Denning RF has been done.

(v)14.11.2024:-

(a) DNA in view

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top