The right to property is constitutional under Article 300-A, mandating government acquisition or compensation for land occupation.

JUDGMENT :

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

“I. a writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners, measuring more than 11.65 Acres located at Jyotinagar and Dirang, under Dirang Division of West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, by way of acquisition process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

“II. A writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to return the land of the petitioners, measuring more than 11.65 Acres located at Jyotinagar and Dirang, under Dirang Division of West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, within 2 (two) months after payment of adequate compensation from the date when they have illegally occupied the land of the petitioners, if the respondents do not want to acquire it by way of acquisition process.

“III. Pass any other order/orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper”.

2. It is the projected case of the petitioners that in the year, 1965, the Indian Army has forcefully occupied the land of the petitioners which measured more than 10 Acres at Dirang in the West Kameng District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Though, such occupation was objected to, the said objection was not paid any heed to. It is, however, the case of the petitioners that such occupation was done during the time of the predecessors of the petitioners and an understanding was arrived at a later point of time that certain hire charge would be paid by the Indian Army. It has been projected that as per the said understanding, the hire charge was paid of an amount of Rs.180/- per annum per Acre. However, from the period of 1985-1990, the Indian Army was gradually vacating the land and thereafter, the Sashastra Seema Bal (for short, ‘SSB’) had started occupying the land which was without the consent of the petitioners. It is also averred that apart from the aforesaid land, another additional plot of land of 1.5 Acres have been occupied by the SSB. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Indian Army had vacated the land, the hire charge was paid till the year, 2016 and though, in the meantime, the possession was taken over by the SSB nothing has been paid till now. It is also averred that the petitioners had approached the District Administration which was of no avail and finally the instant writ petition has been filed for relief as indicated above.

3. I have heard Shri O. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 whereas Shri Y. Doloi, learned Senior penal counsel for the Union of India appears for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned State counsel is present for the respondent Nos. 8, 9 & 10.

4. Shri Pada, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the period when the land in question was in the possession of the Indian Army, the hire charge, as noted above was paid and as such payment continued till the year, 2016. However, after taking over the possession by the SSB, which was also illegally done, nothing has been paid and the petitioners have also not consented for taking over such possession. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in Paragraphs-6 & 7 of the writ petition and has contended that though initially the land under the occu