JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9. 2. Somewhere in 1963-64 after the Chinese aggression, the land of the petitioners measuring-57.42 acres was occupied by the Indian Army and Boarder Road Organization (BRO). In the later years, some portions of the land where used for expansion of the road. As a result of their persistent pleadings to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Central Government, a meeting was convened by the Defence Minister on 14.10.2014 and in pursuance of the decision taken in that meeting, the land of the petitioners was surveyed and assessment was made for payment of compensation. During the survey, it was found that, out of the land mentioned above, 2.8 acres was Army land as such, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation from BRO, and for the land measuring-29.27 acres, the same have already been acquired and compensation paid fo,r and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation only for the remaining land measuring-25.35 acres. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District determined the character and nature of the land and assessed the compensation as per the rate determined by the State Government, and recommended that a sum of Rs. 7,60,10,316 be paid to the petitioners. However, the amount was not paid by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to pay the compensation amount assessed and determined by the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District. 3. Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the case of the petitioners as follows:- wxyz That though their land have been under occupation of BRO since 1963, the petitioners are willing to accept the compensation worked out by the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District even without solatium and interest considering the fact that their land have been utilised for serving the nation''s interest. However, inspite of this goodwill shown by the petitioners the bare minimum compensation worked out by the authority concerned i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, has not been paid till today. zyxw wxyz Mr. However, inspite of this goodwill shown by the petitioners the bare minimum compensation worked out by the authority concerned i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, has not been paid till today. zyxw wxyz Mr. Pertin by referring to the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District dated 24.02.2016 by which the Deputy Commissioner informed the Officer Commanding 91 RCC (GREF) C/o 99 APO that the estimated amount to be paid as compensation to the land owners of the land occupied by the BRO is 7,68,57,633/- submitted that after this letter was sent it was found that some discrepancies had occurred when the survey was conducted, therefore, a resurvey was conducted by a Board consisting of 16 members including 4 (four) from BRO which was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Singchung, West Kameng District. And after the survey was conducted on 12.04.2018, the survey Board found that the land of the petitioners for which compensation is to be paid is only 25.35 acres. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District constituted an Assessment Board to reassess the compensation for the land measuring-25.35 acres. The board in their meeting held on 25.06.2018 recommended that a sum of Rs. 77,6,10,317 crores be paid to the petitioners. zyxw wxyz The learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 one would find that there is no denial of the fact that BRO have been occupying the land of the petitioners and for that no compensation has been paid. There is also no denial of the fact that a Board was constituted to resurvey the land and thereafter, Reassessment Board was also constituted for working out the compensation to be paid to the petitioners and, the Board had submitted their assessment and the same has been finalized by the Deputy Commissioner of the District. Therefore, the respondents have no reason to deny the petitioners the compensation that they deserve. Mr. Pertin also submitted that, it also appears from the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the only reason for which they are denying the compensation as assessed by the competent authority is only because of the classification of the land as market area. According to them, the land should be classified as agricultural land therefore, only Rs. 80 per square meter should be paid and not Rs. 1 to 5 that the only reason for which they are denying the compensation as assessed by the competent authority is only because of the classification of the land as market area. According to them, the land should be classified as agricultural land therefore, only Rs. 80 per square meter should be paid and not Rs. 550 as recommended by the assessment board. Mr. Pertin went on to submit that the land of the petitioners has been classified as commercial plot in market area because the place has become a market place and moreover it is the Deputy Commissioner, who is the authority to determine and decide the character, the nature and class of the land and, assessed the compensation at the rate prescribed by the State Government, and that is exactly what the Deputy Commissioner has done. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the assessment of the compensation. zyxw 4. Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has no dispute over the size of the land of the petitioners occupied by the respondents and the respondents also does not dispute the claim of the petitioners that compensation should be paid for the same. However, after receiving assessment of the assessment board through a letter dated 23.01.2019, addressed to the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer (DLRSO), reassessment have been requested since the respondents are of the view that the land of the petitioners should be classified as agricultural land and therefore compensation should be paid at the rate of Rs. 80 per square meter and not at the rate of Rs. 550 which is the rate of compensation to be paid for lands situated at commercial or market areas, but since no reply has been received, the respondents did not pay the compensation. The learned counsel went on and submitted that, the moment the reassessment is done as requested, the respondents are ready to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondents submitted that re-survey of the land has been conducted by a Board constituted by Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority and in that Board, members of the BRO were also included. And it was only thereafter, that the compensation amount to be paid was assessed by the Board constituted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who is the competent authority. The learned Addl. Sr. And it was only thereafter, that the compensation amount to be paid was assessed by the Board constituted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who is the competent authority. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, further submitted that it was only after the assessment of the Board which was based on the rate already determined by the State that the compensation amount to be paid was worked out and recommended, therefore, the question of re-assessment does not arise anymore. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel representing the parties. I have also gone through the affidavits filed by the parties. It appears from the submission of the learned counsels and from the contents of the affidavits that the land of the petitioners have been under the occupation of the BRO since 1963-64, and it also appears that the decision that, the petitioners should be paid compensation for their land, was taken at the highest level of the Central Govt. Further, it also appears that the only disagreement between the petitioners and the respondents No. 1 to 5 is on the rate at which the compensation should be computed and paid. While the petitioners are happy with the compensation amount worked out by the competent authority, the respondents No. 1 to 5 wants that the same be reviewed, on the ground that the land of the petitioners is not commercial area, therefore, the rate at which the compensation should be worked out should be Rs. 80 per sq meter. Therefore, what needs to be determined here is whether the compensation amount worked out by the competent authority can be withheld because the respondents No. 1 to 5 for whom the land was acquired or who are the occupants of the land, had asked for a review of the assessment. Going back to the facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel, the resurvey Board was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned of the District who is the competent authority to do so and, representatives of the respondents (BRO) were also there. Further, the Board for assessment for reassessment of the compensation was also constituted by the Deputy Commissioner of the district and it was constituted of 4(four) persons, who are; (i). Horticulture Development Officer of the Sub Division; (ii). Junior Engineer, RWD of the Sub Division concerned; (iii) DLRSO, West Kameng District and (IV). Further, the Board for assessment for reassessment of the compensation was also constituted by the Deputy Commissioner of the district and it was constituted of 4(four) persons, who are; (i). Horticulture Development Officer of the Sub Division; (ii). Junior Engineer, RWD of the Sub Division concerned; (iii) DLRSO, West Kameng District and (IV). ADC of the Sub Division as the Chairman, therefore, a competent authority to assess the compensation. There could not have been a better or higher authority in the District to do the job. They have looked into all the aspects of the land and came to a conclusion that the same should be classified as commercial plot in the market and accordingly, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 550 Per Sq meter which is the rate already decided by the State Government for payment of compensation for lands of that class. Therefore, to say that, because a re-assessment has not been done as per their request they are unable to pay the compensation does not sound to be reasonable. The BRO have been occupying the petitioners'' land for the last so many years and they cannot make them wait for a time infinitum. In fact, the respondents should be grateful for the gesture shown by the petitioners in not demanding the solatium and interest including the rental charge since 1963. The land owners cannot be deprived of their entitlement to get the right and fair compensation for their land and that too for such a long time. Now that the compensation to be paid has been assessed by such a competent authority, there is no reason why the respondents No. 1 to 5 should wait any further. In fact, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate has submitted that there would be no more assessment of the compensation to be paid, since, it has been done once by the competent authority. From all these and more, I am of the view that the respondents No. 1 to 5 has no choice but to pay the compensation as assessed by the competent authority. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the respondents No. 1 to 5 are hereby, directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,60,10,316/- as per the assessment made and determined by the competent authority, within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the respondents No. 1 to 5 are hereby, directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,60,10,316/- as per the assessment made and determined by the competent authority, within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the respondents failed to pay the compensation amount during the 6(six) months period, they will be liable to pay interest from today @ 6% per annum till the whole compensation amount is paid. 8. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned CGC for early communication.