The principle of administrative finality prohibits reopening concluded land acquisition proceedings where compensation has been fully determined, disbursed, and accepted. Subsequent judicial interpretations or prospective legislative amendments cannot be utilized to unsettle long-settled transactions, as such actions would destabilize public projects and create fiscal uncertainty.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellants in all the 15 appeals and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondent Nos. 1-3. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Highway Department, for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, for the respondent No. 5, in all the 15 appeals.

2. By this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 03(AP)/2026; 04(AP)/2026; 05(AP)/2026; 06(AP)/2026; 07(AP)/2026; 08(AP)/2026; 09(AP)/2026; 10(AP)/2026; 11/(AP)2026; 12/ (AP)2026; 13(AP)/2026; 14(AP)/2026; 15(AP)/2026; 16(AP)/2026; 17(AP)/2026 and 18(AP)/2026; as, in all these appeals, the challenge is the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.11.2025, in WP(C) Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; is assailed.

Background Facts:-

3. “The appellants have private land, located at Tirap district, which were acquisitioned for construction and widening of existing Khonsa to Hunkanjuri road, measuring 35 km in length and 24 meters in width, from Khonsa petrol pump to Hunkanjuri, under Trans Arunachal Highway (TAH). The appellants were paid compensation for acquiring their private land, but they had not been paid solatium amount, at the time of payment of compensation, which, they are entitled to, under the law.

Then being aggrieved, they approached this Court by filing writ petition Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; with a prayer for issuing direction to the respondents for payment of solatium and interest on solatium to the petitioners, as entitled to under the law.

But, the learned Single Judge, vide Judgment and Order, dated 19.11.2025, in WP(C) Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; has dismissed the same. The being aggrieved, they have approached this Court, by filing the present appeals.

The Contention of the appellants in the before the learned Single Judge:-

4. It is the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to 100% solatium with interest, even after closure of the acquisition proceeding or disbursement of acceptance of the compensation amount, in view of paragraph No. 28, of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11884-11888/2025, arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 9585-9589/2023 (State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Mihin Laling & Ors. wherein, it is stated that -

“28. In respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above."

The further contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge is that in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), it w