Tagam Jempen v. Tajom Jempen and 33 Ors

ORDER Date : 18.04.2023

Heard Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate representing respondent No. 31; Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, representing respondent No. 32; and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 to 30.

This is an application praying for impleadment of the present applicant as party respondent No. 5 in WP(C)/446/2022.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. G. Bam, that the present applicant is a necessary party in the connected writ petition, being WP(C)/446/2022, filed by 30 numbers of petitioners. The present applicant is authorized to represent the Jenpen Sub Clan and the power of attorney is also given in his name to make decisions pertaining to the land acquisition of the community land, which is already occupied by the ITBP. Shri Tajom Jempen has no locus standi to represent the petitioners in WP(C)/446/2022 or to file any representation before the authority concerned for the other petitioners as he is not the authorized person to receive any amount or any money from the State Authority in the name of the solatium, as they prayed for. Rather, the present applicant is the authorized person to receive and disburse the land acquisition Page No.# 8/9 amount as well as the solatium if it is granted by the authority concerned. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is a necessary party and he should be impleaded as party respondent No. 5 in WP(C)/446/ 2022.

In this context, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C)/446/2022 as well the State respondent and the Land Management Department have submitted that vide the said writ petition, the only prayer made by the petitioners is for disbursing of the 100% solatium for their acquisitioned land, where they have already received the adequate compensation from the authority concerned. So, the only point to be decided in the said writ petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get 100% solatium from the authority concerned or whether their case is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA/15/2022 (State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Mihin Laling & Anr.). Therefore, the question of impleading the present applicant as respondent No. 5 does not arise at all and he cannot be aggrieved if the State Authority disburses the 100% solatium on the compensation amount which has already been disbursed by the State authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present application is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the present applicant has no grievance against the petitioners in WP(C)/446/2022 if the solatium is disbursed by the State government. However, his only grievance is that he being the authorized person, the compensation Page No.# 9/9 amount or the solatium has to be disbursed through him as he is representing the said clan. But, from the context of the writ petition, it reveals that all the petitioners have already received their compensation on their acquisitioned land and the only question remained to be decided as to whether they are entitled to get 100% solatium on their acquisitioned land or not and the Court is not to pass any order to disburse the amount through any private person or the applicant if any order for solatium is passed and in that case, the State government will be directed to pass necessary order in that regard and not by any private person.

So, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the present applicant is no way aggrieved by the order of compensation passed by the State government nor he is aggrieved if the order of solatium is passed by this Court and accordingly, I am of the view that the present applicant is not at all a necessary party in the connected writ petition, being WP(C)/446/2022, and therefore, his prayer for impleadment as respondent No. 5 in WP(C)/446/2022 is hereby rejected.

In terms of above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040004882023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C) 64/2023 1:Tagam Jempen S/o Late Tapor Jempen, R/o Nemasibo Village, PO Monigong, PS Tato, District Shi Yomi, (AP), The Power of Attorney Holder of Jempen Sub Clan. VERSUS 1:Tajom Jempen and 33 Ors. Son of Shri Tateng Jempen, Resident of Village Namasibo, PO/PS Monigong, Shi Yomi District, (AP) 9402212388 2:Tateng Jempen Son of Lt. Tapir Jempen Resident of Namasibo (AP) 9436640870 3:Takar Jempen Son of Shri Tateng Jempen Namasibo (AP) 9362294722 4:Tachi Jempen Son of Lt. Tanyang Jempen (AP) 9402952719 Page No.# 2/9 5:Tatet Jempen Son of Shri Techi Jempen (AP) 9402452719 6:Tasing Jempen Son of Shri Tatam Jempen (AP) 8415821790 7:Tagu Jempen Son of Lt. Taba Jempen (AP) 9785928652 8:Tabyak Jempen Son of Shri Tatam Jempen (AP) 6033918102 9:Tapu Jempen Son of Shri Tago Jempen Resident of Monigong (AP) 9485296477 10:Tachuk Jempen Son of Lt. Tanyang Jempen (AP) 9402955880 Page No.# 3/9 11:Tatam Jempen Son of Lt. Tapor Jempen Village Chengo AP 9402934509 12:Takeng Jempen Son of Lt. Tachuk Jempen Village Chengo (AP) 9402478113 13:Tanam Jempen Son of Shri Tachi Jempen Shi Yomi District (AP) 9402602526 14:Tanyo Jempen Son of Lt. Tapor Jempen Resident of Village Korle (AP) 9436845636 15:Tanyong Jempen Son of Lt. Tapor Jempen Resident of Village Korle (AP) 9436845656 16:Tayor Jempen Son of Shri Tachi Jempen Resident of Monigong (AP) Page No.# 4/9 17:Talok Jempen Son of Tatam Jempen (AP) 18:Raju Jempen Son of Tateng Jempen Resident of Village Namasibo (AP) 9436405889 19:Tachung Jempen Son of Lt. Tajen Jempen Resident of Village Korle (AP) 20:Tabyang Jempen Son of Lt. Tachuk Jempen (AP) 9402955880 21:Tabok Jempen Son of Shri Tachi Jempen Resident of Village Namasibo (AP) 8731981301 22:Taje Jempen Son of Shri Tago Jempen Resident of Monigong (AP) 8414988833 Page No.# 5/9 23:Tago Jempen Son of Lt. Tanyang Jempen Resident of Monigong (AP) 9436096996 24:Tabum Jempen Son of Shri Tachi Jempen Resident of Chengo Shi Yomi District (AP) 9402952719 25:Tami Jempen Son of Shri Tanyong Jempen Resident of Monigong (AP) 9402823702 26:Bojum Jempen Son of Lt. Tajen Jempen (AP) 9774676431 27:Arun Jempen Son of Shri Tayor Jempen (AP) 9436217227 28:Boken Jempen Son of Shri Tayor Jempen (AP) 9774794317 Page No.# 6/9 29:Linga Jempen S/o Tasing Jampen R/o Village Chengo PO and PS Monigong District Shi Yomi District (AP) 6633918102 30:Tado Jempen S/o Lt. Tajen Jempen Resident of Village Chengo Monigong District Shi Yomi District (AP) 6033972732 31:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Secretary Land Management Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 32:The Deputy Commissioner Tato Arunachal Pradesh. 33:The Union of India Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highway Govt. of India Transport Bhavan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi 110001 34:The General Manager (P) National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Ministry of Transport and Highways Govt. of India TD Building Opposite BSNL (SDO) Office PO/PS Hapoli Lower Subansiri District Ziro Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP) Page No.# 7/9 BEFORE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA