Alilum Tega and 51 Ors v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 24.07.2024

Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents no. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 as well as Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent no. 5.

¶2The grievance raised in the present proceeding by the petitioners, pertains to manner in which the compensation for the lands, more particularly, the compensation as determined for the Horticulture Crops i.e. Cardamom, standing on the land of the petitioner was so computed.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents are at ad idem that the issue arising in the present proceeding is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of The State of AP and Arn. Vs Topenso Tega and 123 Ors. in WA/40/2022, Judgment and Order, dated 06.12.2023. Page No.# 8/10

¶4The conclusions as drawn by the Division Bench of this Court in the said case, being relevant is extracted herein below:- "3. The case of the private respondents in their writ petition was to the effect that their respective lands were permanently acquired by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2019 (from KM 06.00 to KM 16.00) towards Kapapu in Chaglongam Circle in Anjaw District for public purpose i.e. for construction of defence road by the Border Roads Organisation. The compensation payable to the respondents was initially assessed and/or quantified at Rs. 35,94,01,935/- (Rupees Thirty five crore ninety four lakh one thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) by virtue of Report under Memo No. HL.G/LM-07/2016-18 dated 6th March, 2020 of the Joint Survey and Property Assessment Report/Board Proceeding.

¶4Thereafter, by another Joint Survey and Property Assessment Report, bearing No. HLG/LM-07/2019-20/ dated (not mentioned), the quantum of compensation was reduced to Rs.

25,99,34,34,951. It may be mentioned that one of the signatory to the said report has given the date of "04 Nov 20" under his signature. It is also mentioned that in this survey report, it has been mentioned that the BRO had desired to acquire land under KM 6.500 to KM 16.500, which is in slight variation to the first survey report mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.

¶5By yet another Board Proceeding under No. Memo No. ANJ/LM01/2015-16 dated 8th March 2021, the rates of certain horticulture items including cardamom compensation was scaled down. It is projected that such re-fixation of rates of horticulture items had resulted in further scaling down of the compensation Page No.# 9/10 amount from Rs.25,99,34,34,951 to Rs.11,60,12,680/-.

6.***********************************************************

7.***********************************************************

8.***********************************************************

9.***********************************************************

10.**********************************************************

11.**********************************************************

12.**********************************************************

13.**********************************************************

14.**********************************************************

15.**********************************************************

¶16Thus, in light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned senior counsel for the respondents has been able to establish that the proceedings of W.A. No. 24(AP)/2022 (in which one of us was the Member of the Bench) was heard and decided on factual matrix that is similar to the present appeal, save and except the description of the stretch of land which was acquired. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to make out a case for interference with the judgment and order dated

08.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 320(AP)/2022. This Court is bound by the decision of the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court and therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed in light of the discussions above and in Page No.# 10/10 light of the decision dated 04.01.2023, passed by this Court in W.A. No.24(AP)/2022."

¶5In view of the above, the directions as passed by this Court, vide the Judgment and Order, dated 06.12.2023, in WA/40/2022 as extracted herein above shall also cover the issues arising in the present proceeding.

¶6Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to authorized the petitioners herein their due compensation for the Cardamom crops as standing on their respective lands in accordance with the directions passed by this Court vide order, dated 08.09.2022 in WP(C)/320/2021 and upheld by this Court, vide the Judgment and Order, dated 06.12.2023 in WA/40/2022.

¶7With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/10 GAHC040010112022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/291/2022 Alilum Tega and 51 Ors. S/o Lt. A, Tegam Resident of Tegamna, PO Chagalagam, PS Khupa, District Anjaw, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Helosai Achonyu 3: Nilalum Mai 4: Loyasai Tabronyu 5: Nimisai Bellai 6: Basanti Gambre 7: Gusaisai Awailiang Page No.# 2/10 8: Sosilum Flakam 9: Ojimlum Taflap 10: Rana Flakam 11: Niyolum Mai 12: Diyanso Taflap 13: Dugen Flakam 14: Chaliasai Flakam 15: Jeleelu Flakam 16: Sipeelu Flakam 17: Pensiliang Achanyu Page No.# 3/10 18: Hilerai Achonyu 19: Beminlu Achonyu 20: Lekaisai Achonyu 21: Helosai Achonyu 22: Johilu Achonyu 23: Jailuso Achonyu 24: Nibran Achonyu 25: Romalu Flakam 26: Pibin Achonyu 27: Taisaso Achonyu Page No.# 4/10 28: Odemlum Flakam 29: Jidusai Flakam 30: Jamulum Tega 31: Shyutsi Tega 32: Rimi Tega 33: Batumai Tega 34: Batemlu Tega 35: Tolamsa Tega 36: Solarai Tega Page No.# 5/10 37: Garche Mai 38: Reenelu Hagebrey 39: Begamsai Flakam 40: Ashumlum Tega 41: Ritusai Flakam 42: Sonel Flakam 43: Kantholum Flakam 44: Ratholum Flakam 45: Migamsai Flakam 46: Alapinso Flakam Page No.# 6/10 47: Aruti Flakam 48: Pritamsai Flakam 49: Rinelu Flakam 50: Azadso Flakam 51: Pintosai Flakam 52: Milomso Tega Occupation VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. To be represented through the Chief Secretary, Itanagar, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Page No.# 7/10 5:The Commanding Officer Age: 0 Occupation Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR