The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, is not a forum for adjudicating disputed questions of fact. When the validity of land acquisition and the payment of compensation are essentially contested, the dispute must be resolved through a civil suit where evidence can be scrutinized.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

Both these writ petitions being connected and filed on an analogous cause of action, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The claim in these writ petitions is with regard to compensation for acquisition of land, the process of which started in the year 1962 and the lands appear to have been finally acquired sometime in the year 1972-73.

2. For the sake of clarity, the reliefs prayed for in one of the writ petitions, being WP(C)/187/2023 are extracted hereinbelow:

“PRAYER

In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to

I. Declare the Letter of Ministry of Defence No. A/83676/TENGA/Q3L [East]/498-SD [Lands] dated 18.09.1971 [Annexure-6], the Declaration No. REV-7/72 dated 13/10/1972 issued by the Government of India, Arunachal Pradesh Administration [Annexure-7]

II. Quash and set aside the alleged Award No. CON/101/72 dated 29/03/1973. [ANNEXURE-9]

III. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities more particularly respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay the annual rent for the land measuring 432.47 acres [Defence Land A-1] from 01.01.1964 onwards till date and continue to pay regular rent as per the rate fixed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh within a time frame.

AND

IV. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to calculate the adequate compensation for the land and other properties against the occupied 432.47 acres of land [Defence Land A-1] by lawfully acquiring the land as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act 2013 and to pay the calculated compensation within a time frame.

V. Or otherwise, to hand over of the vacant possession of the land of 432.47 acres[Defence Land A-1] to the Tukpen Village Council.

VI. Issue a direction for continuance of traditional fishing rights over water and rights over its resources.

VII. Direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh [respondent 5] to revise the hiring charge as per the Commissioner, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Letter No. LM-75/2014/1294 Dated 13.08.2014 [Annexure-10]

AND

In the interim direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh to highlight and apprise pertaining to the revision of the hiring charge as per the Commissioner, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Letter No.LM-75/2014/1294 Dated 13.08.2014 [Annexure-10]

And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty und shall ever pray.”

3. As per the facts projected in these two writ petitions, after the 1962 Chinese aggression, the Indian Army had established the defence base in Rupa and Tenga Circles in the West Kameng district. In the said process, initially lands of the petitioners were taken up for requisition. Though it appears that the land was ultimately acquired in the year 1972-73, it is contended that the petitioners were not aware of any such acquisition process. Bereft of details, the claim, as indicated above, is with regard to a compensation for the lands from which the petitioners have been deprived of.

4. I have heard Shri T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri Y. Doloi, learned Senior Penal Counsel for the Union of India and Shri I. Choudhury, learned Advocate General, AP assisted by Shri Y. Riram, learned State Counsel.

5. Shri Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lands were initially requisitioned and the same process continued whereby the petitioners have been dispossessed. He has submitted that no compensation has