ORDER

14.06.2022 Heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K.

Ete, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Shri D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3; Shri D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, for the respondent No. 2; Shri M. Kato, learned ASGI for the respondent No. 4; and Shri T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. At the outset, Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the issue in question is squarely covered by a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 25.04.2022, passed in WP(C)/280(AP)/2020. Though the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that against the aforesaid judgment a writ appeal has been preferred, the said appeal is said to be time barred and accordingly accompanied by an Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay. That being the position, this Court is left with no other alternative but to follow the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court.

However, the brief facts involved are required to be narrated.

3. The petitioners are project affected land owners for construction of the proposed Mipi to Basam road (0.000 km to 16.730 km) and Dambuen to Bruni (0.000 km to 5.600 km) defence road under the Dibang Valley District. The learned counsel has clarified that though 20 (twenty) numbers of writ petitioners are before this Court, they have filed the same in a representative capacity for all the project affected persons. It is the contention of the petitioners that though the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was extended to the State of Arunachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 20.03.2014, the impugned communication, dated 10.12.2020, has been issued for acquiring the aforesaid plot of land by invoking Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947. It is the case of the petitioner that after coming into the operation of the Act of 2013, which has been made applicable by the Notification dated 20.03.2014, acquisition of the land under the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 is not permissible as the entire concept of granting adequate and justified compensation would be defeated. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that the various provisions of the Act of 2013, which have been enacted taking into account the interest of the land affected persons, have not been taken into consideration and accordingly has prayed for setting aside the impugned Notification dated 10.12.2020.

4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as observed earlier, has passed a judgment recently on 25.04.2022 in WP(C)/280(AP)/2020. The facts of the said case are similar to the case of the instant writ petition which involves acquisition of land for Trans Arunachal Highway from Potin to Bopi (Godak) via Yazali etc. In the said case also, the Notification was issued under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation of 1947 and it was the case of the petitioner that after coming into operation of the Act of 2013 vide Notification dated 20.03.2014, the new Act has to be taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge, after discussing all the facts and circumstances which are similar in nature, has made certain observations and also issued directions, which are extracted herein below:-

“55. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, the finding of this Court is summarized as under:

(i) The Regulation of 1947, and the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, are enacted on the same subject, i.e. land, which is a subject of concurrent list. There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in the Regulation of 1947, whereas the same is available in the RFCT & LARR Act. The object sought to be achieved by the Regulation 1947 and the RFCT & LAAR Act are almost the same. And as such Regulation 1947 is inconsistent with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Regulation of 1947 failed to withstand the test of Articl