Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 288 (GAU)

Geeta Mihu v. State Of Arunachal Pradesh

2021-03-19

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2021
JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 3 assisted by Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing counsel, Land Management department appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. M. Kato, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 8. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition are briefly stated as follows; 2.1. Vide letter dated 18.02.2010, the Colonel, Headquarters, 2 Mountain Division requested the Commissioner, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for acquisition of land measuring 105.14 acres at Dibang Valley District for the purpose of accommodating Army units, logistic bases etc. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Land Management), Government of Arunachal Pradesh directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley at Anini, vide his letter No. LM-36/2010/938, dated 16.08.2010 to submit a proposal. Thereafter, the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide his letter No. LM-36/2010/3433, dated 20.03.2012, also requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley to identify and arrange joint inspection of the land. Following the steps taken thereafter, the land of the petitioner measuring 105.14 acres situated at Koyla village in Dibang Valley was handed over to the Indian Army by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley for 5(five) years on lease for the period 2012- 2017 and pursuant thereto, the 19 JAK RIF of Indian Army (2 Mountain Division) occupied the land but without making any payment. Since no rent was received, the petitioner asked the respondents to acquire the land or else allow him to re-possess the same. In the year 2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, who is the land acquisition authority of the District, initiated land acquisition process under section-10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, vide his letter No. DV/LM-171/16-17/8394-599, dated 23.09.2016, forwarded the purpose notification under section-10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, for acquiring the land of the petitioner for logistic Base and accommodation of the Indian Army to the Director of Land Management. The above stated action of the Deputy Commissioner was prompted by the letter dated 30.04.2015, of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India which conveyed the In-Principle approval/endorsement of the Raksha Mantri for acquisition of the land. The above stated action of the Deputy Commissioner was prompted by the letter dated 30.04.2015, of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India which conveyed the In-Principle approval/endorsement of the Raksha Mantri for acquisition of the land. On received of the proposed notification, the Deputy Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley to re-submit the proposal along with sketch map/strip plan for taking further necessary action, vide his letter No. LM-327/2016/992 dated 07.11.2016. In compliance thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley submitted the same to the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide his letter No. DV/LM-171/2016-17/1023-26, dated 06.12.2016. 2.2. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District at Anini vide his letter No. DV/LM/171/16-17/10025-30, dated 18.11.2016 once again forwarded the notification under section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 for approval of the same. Subsequent thereto, the Secretary of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued the notification under section 10 for acquiring the land under Balipara, Tirap, Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation vide his Office Memo No. LM-327/2016, dated 18.01.2017 wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, Anini was directed to take possession of the land of the petitioner. Just two days prior to that the Defence Estate Officer, Jorhat Circle vide his letter dated 16.01.2017, requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District at Anini to stop any further action under the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 till the compensation amount is sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Since the acquisition process was not yet completed, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.03.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District requesting him to complete the same. However, the Army Authority instead of completing the acquisition process once again requested for permission to use the petitioner's land on hired basis for the period 2017-2022. Not happy with the proposal, the petitioner submitted a memorandum dated 04.09.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District objecting the proposal and at the same time requesting for acquisition of his land since it has been under the possession of the Army from 2012. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District through his letter No. DV/LM-171/2016-17/8694-99, dated 06.11.2018 brought to the notice of the Defence Estates Officer, Eastern Command, the grievance of the petitioner and at the same time requested him to take up the same on top priority. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District through his letter No. DV/LM-171/2016-17/8694-99, dated 06.11.2018 brought to the notice of the Defence Estates Officer, Eastern Command, the grievance of the petitioner and at the same time requested him to take up the same on top priority. It may also be mentioned here that earlier the Major, Quartermaster General on behalf of the Commander, JAK RIF vide his letter dated 14.04.2018, had informed the petitioner that the process of acquisition of his land was at final stage, therefore he should give clearance to the PWD for construction of Koyla Basti road which will not only benefit the Army but also the people of the locality. 2.3. On 15.12.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District prepared a draft notification under section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013) for acquisition of 105.14 acres at Koyla Village, Dibang Valley District (land of the petitioner) and forwarded the same to the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide his letter No. DV/LM-171/18-19/107-99-804. Prior to the submission of the said draft by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District one Major Jinu Thankappan, Assistant Quartermaster General, on behalf of the Commander Headquarter, 117 Mountain Brigade vide his letter dated 18.03.2018 requested the Secretary of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to approved the draft notification at the earliest. On 27.02.2019, the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide his letter No. LM327/2016/17/2139 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District to acquire the land in question under section-11(1) of the LARR Act, 2013 or under section 40(2) of the same Act in reference to his letter dated 15.12.2018, addressed to the Secretary of Land Management. Thereafter, on 08.03.2019 the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the notification under section 40 of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 vide Memo No. LM-327/2016/2441 inviting objection to the acquisition of 105.14 acres of land belonging to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 08.03.2019 the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the notification under section 40 of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 vide Memo No. LM-327/2016/2441 inviting objection to the acquisition of 105.14 acres of land belonging to the petitioner. After the above notification was issued the attached Officer, on behalf of the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Eastern Command vide his letter No. AC/ACQ/AC/105.14/KOYLA BASTI/LC7/17, dated 15.05.2019, requested the Defence Estates Officer, Itanagar Circle to approach the LMA to submit the Board Proceedings and send a comprehensive proposal for obtaining the Government sanction for acquisition of 105.14 acres of land at Koyla Basti, Dibang Valley District (the petitioner land). In compliance thereto, the Defence Estates Officer, Itanagar Circle sent the details of the information requested for and recommended for obtaining sanction of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, vide his letter dated 30.07.2019. In between the two dates of correspondence mentioned above, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District notified the award for acquisition of 105.14 acres of land at Koyla Basti under section-23 of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 vide his Office Memo No. DV/LM-171/18-19 and the same was conveyed to the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and to the Defence Estates Officer, Itanagar Circle and the Local Military Authority at Koyla Basti in Dibang Valley District. After few months thereafter, on 31.10.2019, the Director on behalf of the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Eastern Command, Kolkata, vide his letter No. AC/ACQ-105.14/KOYLABASTI/LC-7/31 requested the Secretary of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to issue necessary direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District to cancel the notification issued by him. Few days thereafter, the Assistant Defence Estates Officer in-charge of Defence Estates Officer, Itanagar Circle vide his letter dated 07.11.2019 also requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District to cancel his notification issued under RFCT & LARR Act, 2013. 2.4. Coming to know about the two letters mentioned above, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.11.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District requesting him not to cancel the notification already issued. 2.4. Coming to know about the two letters mentioned above, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.11.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District requesting him not to cancel the notification already issued. In pursuant thereto, on 28.11.2019 vide his letter No. DV/LM-171/2016-17, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District requested the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh not to cancel the notification issued for acquisition of the land of the petitioner since all the formalities has been followed as per the desire of the concern authority. The Deputy Commissioner mentioned 7(seven) reasons in his letter. However, the Deputy Commissioner was informed by the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide letter No. LM-327/2016/1310, dated 07.11.2019 that, the Government vide U.O No. 2737, dated 07.11.2019 has already approved cancellation of the notification No. LM-327/2441, dated 08.03.2019 issued by the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for acquiring 105.14 acres of land. Being aggrieved by the approval of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to cancel the notification issued by the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in respect of his land, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing and setting aside of the same and praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned authority more particularly, the respondents No. 5, 6 & 7 to immediately deposit the compensation award-amounting to Rs. 25,01,97,399/-(Rupees Twenty five crore one lakh ninety seven thousand and three hundred ninety nine) only in the account of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District so that he may get the compensation of his land; and also praying for a direction directing the respondents to pay additional amount of 75% of the total compensation amount in terms of the provisions of section-40(5) of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 along with interest accrued thereon. 3. The case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel in brief is that, since the necessary notifications under the relevant law have been issued and the award has also been notified by the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) of the District, and the Army also has already been in possession of the land of the petitioner since 2012, the State Government cannot cancel or recall the acquisition proceedings and the award. Mr. Mr. Saikia further submitted that the power of the State Government in respect of acquisition of land is limited to call for the record before the award is made by the Collector for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any finding or order passed or as to the regularity of such proceedings so that it may pass such order or issue such directions in relation to the same as it may be deem fit but, that does not include the power of cancellation. Furthermore, the learned counsel also submitted that the appropriate Government is given the liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any of the portion of the land which possession has not been taken but it cannot do so in regard to the land which possession has already been taken. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to section-93 of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013. The contents of the section are reproduced here below; "93. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) The appropriate Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the appropriate Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land." Mr. R. Sakia, after having submitted as such, submitted also that in the affidavit of the respondents including that of the respondents No. 4 to 8 no mentioned is made that the land of the petitioner is no longer required for accommodating the defence personnel and for facilitating their other needs. Therefore, there is no reason why the acquisition proceedings including the award should be cancelled. In support of his submission that once possession of the land has been taken acquisition has become final, the learned counsel referred to para-14 & 15 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain & Others-versus- State of U.P & Others, (1993) 4 SCC 369 . The contents of the two paragraphs are reproduced here below; "14. The contents of the two paragraphs are reproduced here below; "14. There are two judgments of this Court which we must note. In Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and Ors. it was held that Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land. In Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma , it was held that "after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under Section 17(1) the land is vested in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is taken under Section 17(1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification." 15. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possession the land vests in the Government that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11-A can have no application to cases of acquisition under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner." 4. Furthermore, Mr. Saikia submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Dibang Valley District has supported the case of the petitioner by stating that all the procedures have been followed while acquiring the land of the petitioner and the award has been notified, therefore, it is for the respondents to sanction the amount awarded as per law. In conclusion Mr. Saikia also submitted that lack of sanction is the internal matter of the respondents, as such, it is for them to obtain the same so that the petitioner is paid for his land acquired for the defence of the Country and he should not be made to suffer for the in action or omission of the respondents in obtaining or in according the required sanction. 5. Mr. D. kamduk, learned Standing counsel for the Land Management Department and appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that there is no provision under the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 to re-sign, recall or to cancel an award once it is issued or notified by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the approval given by the State Government to the proposal for cancellation of the award was by inadvertent mistake. In support of his submission, Mr. Kamduk referred to paragraph-8, 10, 12 & 13 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Others-versus- Government (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 9 SCC 416 . The contents of the above paragraphs are reproduced here below; "8. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award once passed under Section 11 of the Act and had attained finality. The only provision is for correction of clerical errors in the Award which is provided for under Section 13A of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 24.09.1984. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award once passed under Section 11 of the Act and had attained finality. The only provision is for correction of clerical errors in the Award which is provided for under Section 13A of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 24.09.1984. The relevant Section 13A of the Act reads as under: "13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. - (1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority: Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award to all the persons interested. (3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. (emphasis supplied) 10. In our considered view, the Review Award could not have been passed under Section 13A of the Act, which is meant only for correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake. There is no other provision in the Act under which the said order dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed. 12. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the Award of the Collector shall become final on the same being filed in the Collector's office, of which the Collector shall give immediate notice to the persons interested. There is no other provision in the Act under which the said order dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed. 12. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the Award of the Collector shall become final on the same being filed in the Collector's office, of which the Collector shall give immediate notice to the persons interested. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the Award dated 01.10.2003, of which due notice had been given to the appellants and part compensation had also been paid to the appellants in pursuance thereto, had become final and the same could not have been reviewed, and that too beyond a period of six months, within which period only clerical or arithmetical mistakes could have been corrected. 13. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 , has held as under: " 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasijudicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, (1965) AIR SC 1457)and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh. 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 ] , Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, (1979) 1 SCC 321 , Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, (1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 491 : AIR 1987 SC 2186 ] , State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement, (1998) 7 SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537] this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. of Land Records and Settlement, (1998) 7 SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537] this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification /modification/ correction is not permissible." 6. Mr. D. Kamduk, thereafter submitted also that the only reason given by the Army authorities for requesting cancellation of the award was that sanction for acquisition of the land has not yet been accorded by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the Army authorities may pursue for such sanction or this Court may even direct the Ministry of Defence to accord the sanction since the land was acquired on the request of the Army and In-principle approval had already been given by the Raksha Mantri. Mr. Kamduk also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner himself has no power to recall or cancel the award notified by him except for making correction of clerical or mathematical mistakes in the award or to make reference to the authority under section 64 of the same Act, but that too can be done only within 6(six) months and not beyond. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly not cancel the award till today. Lastly, Mr. Kamduk submitted that the decision to recall or cancel the award was taken by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on the request of the Army authorities but, it has no power to do so. 7. Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC representing the respondents No. 4 to 8 submitted that the process for acquiring the land of the petitioner had proceeded without obtaining the required sanction from the Ministry of Defence. 7. Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC representing the respondents No. 4 to 8 submitted that the process for acquiring the land of the petitioner had proceeded without obtaining the required sanction from the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, all the correspondences from the Army authorities would amount to nothing unless sanction is accorded by the competent authority. It was on realizing this lapse or lapses that Office of the Estates Officer, Eastern Command had requested to keep on hold further proceedings of the acquisition proceedings of the petitioner's land. Without such sanction no money would be available to the Army authorities for making payment to the petitioner for his land. Mr. M. Kato also submitted that the Army is the beneficiary only and not the acquiring authority. It is the Ministry of Defence to take the decision to acquire the land for the use of the Army and to accord sanction for acquisition. Therefore, the Army cannot take the decision to acquire the land without the decision or sanction of the Ministry of Defence. On the Court's asking as to whether the Army is still in need of the land of the petitioner for the purpose for which they have been in possession, Mr. Kato answered "yes". Lastly, Mr. Kato submitted that the proposal for acquiring the land of the petitioner was not started by the Estate Officer concern of the Army Circle, therefore, it was not under proper authorization. 8. Mr. K. Ete, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General while supporting the submission of the learned Standing counsel, Land Management department submitted that since all the process has been completed under the RFCT & LARR Act of 2013, the Army authorities may obtain the required sanction from the Ministry of Defence. 9. I have considered the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this case and the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties. 10. From the submissions of the learned counsels, it is clear that there is no dispute as to the possession of the land of the petitioner by the Army since 2012 and that, it happened on the request of the Army to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to make the land available for acquisition for their use in the Defence of the Country. There is also no dispute on the claim of the petitioner that Raksha Mantri had given in principle approval for acquisition of the land which was needed and already occupied by the Army personnel. Further, so many correspondences had taken place between the Army and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh at different levels regarding the acquisition of the land of the petitioner, and all these have happened with the actual or tacit consent of the highest authority of the Army and the Officers or Officials of the Ministry of Defence. Moreover, the fact that the Army personnel had been occupying the land of the petitioner for such a long period of time has been in the knowledge of the highest authority in the Army and the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that sanction of the Ministry of Defence is nothing more than an act of administrative formality or procedural requirement and it could have been taken care of had the people in the system were fully alive on the issue and to the ground situation faced by our brave soldiers. It should have been either obtained by the Army authorities or given by the Ministry of Defence at the right time. For the act of omission or commission within the machinery, the petitioner who has waited for so long for a just and reasonable compensation cannot be made to suffer. One must not forget that the respondents are none other than the Government of a State and the Government of the Country governed by the Rule of Law, principles of democracy and of a welfare State. Governments and their functionaries in such Country are duty bound to ensure that no citizen suffers for their lack of performance in their duties and in the exercise of their powers conferred to them by law. Right to property has ceased to be fundamental right by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution of India however, it continued to be a constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution and a human right since ours is a welfare State. The Article provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Right to property has ceased to be fundamental right by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution of India however, it continued to be a constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution and a human right since ours is a welfare State. The Article provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Therefore, the obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred and the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property without paying compensation and following the procedure established by law. As such, to forcibly dispossess a person without payment of a just and reasonable compensation for his private property and without following due process of law would amount to violation of both his human right and constitutional right. It is true that the State in exercise of its eminent domain can acquire property of a citizen but the same must be for public purpose and for that reasonable compensation must be paid. This has been held in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. -versus- Darius Shapur Chenai and in the case of N. Padmamma -versus- Ramakrishna Reddy. Lastly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. -versus- State of U.P. also held that the right to property is basic human right in the following words; "30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. "Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists." 11. The permeable of our Constitution provides that the State should endeavour to secure to its citizens justice; social, economic and political and equality of status and all opportunity etc. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the economic interest or status of its citizens are not adversely affected but secure and there is equality of status and opportunity for them all. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the economic interest or status of its citizens are not adversely affected but secure and there is equality of status and opportunity for them all. When an individual has been deprived of his property for such a long period of time without being paid anything and that too without following the procedure established by law, it is not possible to accept that the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Central Government has endeavored to secure his constitutional and human right. 12. Further, right to property though it is no longer a fundamental right is intrinsically link to the right to life enshrined in the the Constitution of India. Right to life is not mere animal existence but life with dignity and respect. When a person's right to property is violated or trampered upon his right to live with dignity and respect is naturally affected or to say the least undermined. And that cannot be allowed to happen since the State in a democratic Country is under obligation to ensure that it is not violated. Once again, it may be stated that property in whatever form is necessary for a human being to live a life with dignity and respect. Therefore, when such right of a person is sacrificed for common good it should be compensated adequately and in time. That is the very reason why statutory laws have been enacted like "The Land Acquisition Act, 1894"' which is now replaced by the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013. These laws have provided how lands belonging to private owners should be acquired and the time frame within which each stage of the acquisition has to be completed and, how the quantum of the compensation is to be work out etc. The provisions of this statutes has to be scrupulously followed so as to ensure that the land owner who has already suffered deprivation of his property in public interest does not suffer any further, but compensated duly, so that his livelihood and economic status is not deprived. The provisions of this statutes has to be scrupulously followed so as to ensure that the land owner who has already suffered deprivation of his property in public interest does not suffer any further, but compensated duly, so that his livelihood and economic status is not deprived. In this case, correspondences between the State Government, the Army authorities and the Ministry of Defence spreading over the last 8 years had taken place and, reading of the correspondences shows that the Army was in need of a suitable land for the purpose of accommodating their personnels and for stationing of equipments for the defence of the Country and it was following their request that the State Government had taken up the process for acquiring the land of the petitioner and, before it could even be completed they could take possession of the same. Further, it can also be understood from the correspondences and the submissions of the learned CGC that the Army is still in need of the land and they are still in possession. Therefore, it was and it is incumbent upon all concerned to pull their acts together so that the need of the Army for the defence of the Country is met permanently and the land owner who has already made a sacrifice for the common good is not further deprived of rights accruing from his ownership of the land. To be deprive of a land of that size for such a long period of time and that too without being paid a single penny is nothing but deprivation of his right to live with dignity and respect. Section-37 & 40 of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 provides as follows; "37. Awards of Collector when to be final.- (1) The Awards shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and market value of the land and the assets attached thereto, solatium so determined and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his awards to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or through their representatives when the awards are made. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his awards to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or through their representatives when the awards are made. (3) The Collector shall keep open to the public and display a summary of the entire proceedings undertaken in a case of acquisition of land including the amount of compensation awarded to each individual along with details of the land finally acquired under this Act on the website created for this purpose. 40. Special powers in case of urgency to acquire land in certain cases.- (1) In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of thirty days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 21, take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (2) The powers of the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) shall be restricted to the minimum area required for the defence of India or national security or for any emergencies arising out of natural calamities or any other emergency with the approval of Parliament: 24 Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a building under this sub-section without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight hours notice of his intention to do so, or such longer notice as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove his movable property from such building without unnecessary inconvenience. (3) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall tender payment of eighty per cent. of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the person interested entitled thereto. (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1), sub- section (2) or sub-section (3) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that any or all of the provisions of Chapter II to Chapter VI shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 19 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of section 11. (5) An additional compensation of seventy-five per cent. (5) An additional compensation of seventy-five per cent. of the total compensation as determined under section 27, shall be paid by the Collector in respect of land and property for acquisition of which proceedings have been initiated under sub-section (1) of this section: Provided that no additional compensation will be required to be paid in case the project is one that affects the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security and strategic interests of the State or relations with foreign States." On careful perusal of the above provisions of the Act of 2013 one would understand that when an award is passed and notified it is final between the Collector and the persons interested as far as the land in question is concerned. Therefore, there is no going back or looking back in respect of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. Further, it would also be seen that in the case of urgent need the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, on the direction of the appropriate Government can even take possession of the land intended to be acquired on the expiration of 30 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section-21 of the same Act. And, when such possession is taken, the land in question vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. But before taking the possession it is encumbered upon the Collector/Deputy Commissioner to tender payment of 80% of the compensation estimated by him, to the owner of the land. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 28.11.2019 addressed to the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had stated that in acquiring the land of the petitioner all formalities has been followed. However, it appears from the facts as already stated above that though the possession of the land had been taken by the Army since 2012 and the award has been notified not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner as required under the provisions of the Act stated above. Therefore, it is concluded that the constitutional and human right of the petitioner has been violated and trampered upon at different stages that too, for such a long period of time. The only explanation given by the respondents appears to be only that of the absence of sanction from the Ministry of Defence for acquiring the land. This explanation cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated above. 13. The only explanation given by the respondents appears to be only that of the absence of sanction from the Ministry of Defence for acquiring the land. This explanation cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated above. 13. 14. Nothing Has Change So Far, Regarding The Need For The Land Of The Petitioner By The Army And Their Occupation Or Possession Of The Same. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances and the conclusions and observations made, I am of the view that the respondents, particularly the respondents No. 4 to 8 should obtain the sanction as required and pay the compensation to the petitioner as per the award made by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector of the District concerned as it is incumbent upon them to do so under the Constitution of India and the provisions of the relevant statute, at the earliest, but not beyond the period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Having made the above directions it is felt that the service of the State Government including the Deputy Commissioner would still be required at any stage of the process, therefore the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are also hereby, directed to do all acts that may be required on their part so that the petitioner does not suffer deprivation of his rights accruing from the ownership of the land in question any longer. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.