The State of Ap and Anr v. Topenso Tega and 123 Ors

ORDER Date : 06.12.2023 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Page No.# 26/30 Management Department of the State. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for all the 124 respondents.

¶2This intra-Court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 320(AP)/2022.

¶3The 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/LM-01/2015-16 dated 8th March 2021, the rates of certain horticulture items Page No.# 27/30 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 amount from Rs.25,99,34,34,951 to Rs.11,60,12,680/-.

¶6The herein before referred second and third re-assessments were challenged by the respondents by filing W.P.(C) 320/2021, which was allowed by judgment and order impugned in this intra-Court appeal.

¶7By order dated 12.10.2023, this Court had ordered that the question regarding maintainability of this appeal be kept open for decision. Accordingly, as the issue of maintainability was raised by the respondents, the learned senior counsel for the respondents was asked to address the Court first.

¶8The learned senior counsel for the respondents had submitted that under a similar facts and circumstances, which related to land covered under the same acquisition process, but relating to a different chainage, this Court had dismissed W.A. No. 24/2022, filed by the appellants vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2023. In the said context, it was submitted that the appellant had placed heavy reliance on the interim order passed in the said W.A. No. 24/2022 in para 14 of this memo of appeal.

¶9The learned standing counsel for the appellant had vehemently opposed the prayer of the respondents questioning the maintainability of this writ petition.

¶10It may be mentioned that although the learned standing counsel for the appellant has opposed the prayer made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, but it could not be shown that save and except the different chainage and/or stretch of the road acquired for defence purpose, the subject matter of W.A. No. 24(AP)/2022 and the instant writ petition is not otherwise Page No.# 28/30 identical.

¶11In the judgment dated 08.09.2022, impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge had based its finding in light of the judgment dated

04.04.2022 in W.P.(C) 240(AP)/2021 and judgment dated 13.06.2022, passed in 175(AP)/2022. The said judgments were also referred in the judgment impugned in W.A. No. 24(AP)/2022.

¶12The learned standing counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute that in both the said writ petitions, the quantum of compensation had been reduced pursuant to the common Board Proceeding.

¶13One of the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the appellants was to the effect that the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 04.04.2022, passed in W.P.(C) 240(AP)/2021, had made an observation in para-6 of the said order that … "if the rate of any of item in the acquisition is required to be determined, let the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw do it and complete the same within 15 (fifteen) days from the receipt of certified copy of and thereafter the matter be placed before the Government for its approval …" The said observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 240(AP)/2021, cannot be interpreted to mean that (i) the Deputy Commissioner could delegate the decision making process of fixing rate of an item under acquisition to a Board without obtaining prior leave of this Court; and (ii) to take into consideration the rate of any item that was fixed on

08.03.2021, which was long after the date of land acquisition.

¶14The learned standing counsel for the appellants has also not been able to dispute that the proposal for acquisition of land was made in the year 2017 and that the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 2019. It is Page No.# 29/30 also an admitted position of the appellants that the rates of horticulture was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District vide Board Proceeding under No. Memo No. ANJ/LM-01/2015-16 dated 8th March 2021. Thus, though the land of the petitioners were acquired in the year 2019, the rates of compensation was fixed on the basis of Board Proceeding under memo dated

08.03.2021, which is impermissible.

¶15It may be mentioned herein that the learned senior counsel for the respondents had submitted that the Central Government through the Border Roads Organisation had deposited the entire compensation money amounting to Rs.35,94,01,935/- (Rupees Thirty five crore ninety four lakh one thousand nine hundred and thirty five only). The said statement has not been controverted and/or denied by the appellants.

¶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 light of the decision dated

04.01.2023, passed by this Court in W.A.No. 24(AP)/2022.

¶17Hence, on facts and circumstances, the challenge in this intra-Page No.# 30/30 Court appeal fails in law and in light of judgment and order dated 04.01.2023, passed by this Court in W.A.No. 24(AP)/2022. The appellant has not been able to persuade this Court to take a view which would be contrary to the opinion expressed in W.A. No. 24(AP)/2022.

¶18Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶19Before parting with the records, it may be mentioned that the name and description of the appellants has not been provided in the cause title of the memo of appeal in this case. Therefore, in the absence of the name and description of the appellants, this appeal is found to be otherwise not maintainable.

¶20Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/30 GAHC040015082022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/40/2022 THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Represented through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, AP. Pin 791111, Itanagar. 2: The Secretary Age: Land Management Govt. of AP. Itanagar Civil Secretariat A VERSUS Topenso Tega and 123 Ors. S/o Mishe Tega, Resident of Village Abohagam, PO/PS Anjaw, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Raptenso Achonyu S/o Lt.K. Achonyu resident of Village Aphomna Chaglagam Dalai Valley Anjaw District 3:Muenso Achonyu S/o Yatong Tega resident of village Aphomna PO/PS- Anjaw district ArunachalPradesh. Page No.# 2/30 4:Jamtem Achanyu S/o Khayama Taflap resident of village Aphomna PO/PS-Anjaw District 5:Nibren Achanyu S/o- P.Achanyu resident of village Aphomna PO/PS-Anjaw District 6:Katam Flakam W/o TopensoTega resident of village Taflagam PO/PS-Anjaw District 7:Chokhi Taflap S/o T.Taflap resident of village Taflagam Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw 8:Kulelam Apho S/o A. Apho resident of village-Aphemla Dalai PO/PS Anjaw district A.P. 9:Hacholing Apho S/o S.Apho Page No.# 3/30 resident of village Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 10:Jaluso Achunyu S/o P.Achunyu resident of village-Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw disitrict Arunacahal Pradesh. 11:Johilee Achunyu S/o M.Achunyu resident of village-Aphomla Dalai PO/PS- Anjaw District 12:Petin Achunyu S/o T.Achunyu resident of village- Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 13:Buglelum Tega S/o Lt. D.Teja resident of village-Chaglongam Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 14:Melan Bellai S/o-Late.Titusa Bellai resident of Village Taflagam Dalai PO/PS Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 4/30 15:Titusa Bellai S/o- Lt. T. Bellai resident of village Taflagam Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 16:Tiwailiary Bellai (Taflap) S/o-Domo Taflap resident of village-Taflagam Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 17:Mamta Achuyu S/o Shri A.Achumyu resident of village- Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 18:Humanglum Achunyu S/o A.Achunyu resident of village-Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-AnjawDistrict 19:Aahika Achonyu S/o Shri P. Achonyu resident of village- Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 20:Baiso Apho S/o Shri C.Apho resident of village-Aphomla Page No.# 5/30 Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 21:Badyalom Apho S/o C.Apho resident of village-Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 22:Yeteng Flakam S/o Shri resident of village-Tarampa Dalai PO/PS Anjaw District 23:Sohra Apho S/o Shri M.Apho resident of village- Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 24:Jageso Apho S/o Shri C.Apho resident of village- Aphomla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 25:Manso S/o Shri. K. Satam resident of village-Chaka Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 26:Niram Tega Page No.# 6/30 S/o Shri M.Tega resident of village-Tegmla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 27:Bomden Achonyu S/o Shri B.Achonyu resident of village-Aphunla Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 28:Ganju Tega S/o Shri. Jingling Tega resident of village-Tegamna Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 29:Wechali Ritti /o Shri. S.Ritti resident of village-Tegamna Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 30:Alianso Ritti S/o Shri. S.Ritti resident of village- Rittiliay Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 31:Samai Flakam S/o Shri B.Flakam resident of village- Tarampa Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 32:Surin Flakam Page No.# 7/30 S/o Shri Y.Flakam resident of village-Tarampa Dalai PO/PS- Anjaw district 33:Chelelam Flakam S/o Shri. S. Flakam resident of village-Taflagam Dalai PO/PS- Anjaw district 34:Babrum Tega S/o Shri. D.Tega aged about 32 years resident of village- Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 35:Disamlu Tayang W/o Shri. Topinso Tega resident of village-Abohagum Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw District 36:Mitinum Masap S/o Shri. S. Masap aged about 37 years resident of village- Khoraliang Dalai PO/PS- Anjaw district 37:Jouinlu Tega S/o Shri. M.Tega resident of village- Abohagam Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district Page No.# 8/30 38:Sowailum Samba S/o Shri. A. Samba resident of village-Ziro Dalai PO/PS-Anjaw district 39:Ranaso Flakam S/o Shri.