JUDGMENT : [A.M. Bujor Barua, J.] 1. Heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Advocate General In-charge for the appellants in WA/15/2022, WA/16/2022, WA/17/2022, WA/22/2022, and WA/23/2022 and Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in WA/20/2022 and WA/21/2022. Also heard Mr. Subu Koyang, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. Marto Kato, learned CGC authorities under the Union of India and Mr. Dugmar Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Department to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. As all the writ appeals involve important questions of law relating to the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act of 2013) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh; vis-a-vis the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (in short Regulations of 1947) based upon the factual matrix of the respective writ petitions, which are also the same and therefore, we take up the factual basis in respect of WA/15/2022 and refer to the materials and documents provided therein. 3. The writ petitioners are all land owners and by a notification No. LM- 14/2014 dated 17.02.2014 the Government of Arunachal Pradesh through the Secretary of the Land Management Department had issued a notification for acquiring the lands mentioned to the Schedule to the said notification for construction of road under Trans Arunachal Highway(in short TAH) from Potin to Bopi (Godak) Via Yazali, Yazuli, Ziro, Boa-shimla, Tamen and Raga. The lands of the writ petitioners were included in the Schedule to the notification for acquisition. The notification for acquisition states that it was issued under Section 10 of the Regulation of 1947. 4. It would be relevant to take note that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh through the Secretary of the Land Management Department had issued a notification No. LM-134/2011 providing for the procedure to be followed in respect of depositing and disbursement of compensation for the acquisition of land for various purposes including the TAH and in the notification itself it has been provided that the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short Act of 1894) shall be followed for calculation of the compensation. The procedure prescribed in the notification dated 28.09.2012 for calculation of the compensation is as extracted:- 1. Land value. 2. The procedure prescribed in the notification dated 28.09.2012 for calculation of the compensation is as extracted:- 1. Land value. 2. Add 12% per annum as interest on land value to be calculated from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to the date of award or the date of section taking possession of lands before declaring the award (by applying clause) whichever is earlier. 3. Add 30% (Lump Sum) solatium on land value. 4. Add cost of standing trees and/or any other assets on the land. 5. Add establishment charges @ 8% on the land value. 6. Add contingency charges @ 2% on the land value. The notification of 28.09.2012 further provides that 8% establishment charge on the land value as provided in Sl. No. 5 shall be deposited in the treasury under the head of account “0029’’ (Land Revenue) and the 2% contingency charges as provided in Sl. No. 6 shall be deposited in the Joint Account of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Land Management Department and the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It further provided that the land value in Sl. No. 2 interest of 12%, in Sl. No. 3 a solatium of 30%, and the cost of standing trees and other assets on the land in Sl. No. 4 shall be paid to the land owners. 5. By a subsequent notification No. LM-134/2011 dated 27.02.2016, in supersession of the earlier notification No.LM-134/2011 (Pt) the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to prescribe a modified procedure to be followed for all kinds of land acquisition including payment of compensation. The procedure provided in the notification dated 27.02.2016 is as extracted:- “1. Land value (as per existing market rate). 2. Add asset value on land to be acquired. 3. Add any other provision of solatium interest or factor mandatory of land value as per provision of land acquisition proceedings under the said act. 4. Add 7% Establishment Charges on land value to be deposited by concern DC/DLRSO through treasury challan under ‘H0029’ (Land Revenue). 5. Add 3% contingency change to be realized from land and asset value of which 1% to be deposited in the joint account of Commissioner/Secretary and Director, Land Management and 236 at the disposal of concerned DC/DLRSO to meet administrative expenses land acquisition process and related logistic support. 6. 5. Add 3% contingency change to be realized from land and asset value of which 1% to be deposited in the joint account of Commissioner/Secretary and Director, Land Management and 236 at the disposal of concerned DC/DLRSO to meet administrative expenses land acquisition process and related logistic support. 6. Add land revenue to be realized as per existing notified rate by State Government which should be deposited through Challan under ’HA 0029’ (Land Revenue) by concern DC/DLRSO. 7. The amount mentioned at S. 1 to 3 shall be disbursed to the native land owners as their land value share in and & other assets attached thereto with prior approval from the government.” 6. From the afore-extracted provisions of the notification dated 27.02.2016, it is discernible that two of the provisions of the earlier notification dated 28.09.2012 providing for 12% interest per annum to be calculated from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 and for 30% lump sum solatium on the land value have been withdrawn. In other words, some of the provisions of the Act of 1894 which was brought into effect by the notification 28.09.2012 have been withdrawn by the notification dated 27.02.2016. 7. But, at the same time by another notification No. LM-20/2005 (Pt)/1546 dated 20.03.2014 under the signature of the Secretary cum Revenue Commissioner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Land Management Department, it had been provided that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to extend the Act of 2013 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh from the appointed date notified by the Government of India in the Gazette of India dated 19.12.2013, where the appointed date is 01.01.2014. By the said notification all the Deputy Commissioners, Additional Deputy Commissioners and the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officers were directed to process the Land Acquisition cases under the provisions of the Act of 2013. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, a notification was issued in respect of the land of the petitioners dated 17.02.2014 which provided that it was issued under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, a notification was issued in respect of the land of the petitioners dated 17.02.2014 which provided that it was issued under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947. The notification reads that power to acquire land is vested in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and it is competent for the Government to notify the land within the State of Arunachal Pradesh for public purpose under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947.The notification further provided that the Deputy Commissioner of Lower Subansiri District was directed to take possession of the notified land subject to NOC from the Department of Environment and Forest. It also provided that any person who may have objection to the acquisition may file such objections to the Deputy Commissioner within 30 days. The schedule of the land provides that it would be 20 meters to 60 meters width for construction and widening of twolane national highway starting from Potin village at point 00 KM to 157 KM towards Godak on existing BRO from Potin-Old Ziro to Bopi(Godak). 9. The lands notified by the notification dated 17.02.2014, also included the lands of the present writ petitioners. The authorities in the Public Works Department (PWD) in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh by the communication dated 22.04.2015, provided for the compensation estimate in connection with the acquisition pursuant to the notification dated 17.02.2014 amounting to Rs. 4,36,16,69,600/-. 10. We also take note of communication dated 28.12.2017 of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, as well as to the Managing Director of National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in short NHIDCL), wherein there is a direction that in respect of the lands acquired for the national highway projects, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would become applicable. It was also provided that solatium @ 100% of the compensation amount would also be required to be paid. 11. In respect of the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, only the value of the land was paid without paying the solatium @ 100% and the 12% interest per annum till payment. Accordingly, a legal notice dated 20.04.2018 was served by the petitioners upon the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District Ziro. In the notice in respect of petitioner Tuk Yania, it was provided that she was paid a total amount of Rs. Accordingly, a legal notice dated 20.04.2018 was served by the petitioners upon the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District Ziro. In the notice in respect of petitioner Tuk Yania, it was provided that she was paid a total amount of Rs. 2,48,400/- but it did not contain the solatium of 100% of the land compensation as well as the interest @ 12% up to the date of payment. 12. In response thereof, Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, by his communication dated 12.07.2018 informed the Lawyer of the petitioner that the land was acquired under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947, where the requirement was to pay a reasonable compensation but there were no provisions for payment of solatium or any further interest. 13. Being aggrieved, the writ petitions are instituted seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondents to pay the solatium and the interest as well to set aside the reply of the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, dated 12.07.2018. 14. The writ petitioners raised the contention before the learned Single Judge that under the law in force they are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest as provided in the Act of 2013 and therefore, a denial of such payment had affected their legal right. 15. On the other hand, the authorities in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh raised the counter contention that the acquisition process under the Act of 2013 is a cumbersome one whereas, the process prescribed under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 is a simple one and as such, the Government had proceeded to acquire the lands for construction of the TAH under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947. It was a further contention that there is no provision for payment of solatium and interest under the Regulations of 1947, although, the Act of 2013 provides for it. In the circumstance, the petitioners have happily accepted the compensation paid to them without any protest, where the payment was made by following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the claim for solatium and interest at the belated stage was not maintainable. It was also a contention that the Regulations of 1947 were enacted under the Concurrent List and both the legislations i.e., the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 co-exists and the Act of 2013 had neither repealed nor altered the Regulations of 1947. It was also a contention that the Regulations of 1947 were enacted under the Concurrent List and both the legislations i.e., the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 co-exists and the Act of 2013 had neither repealed nor altered the Regulations of 1947. Accordingly, it was the contention that the provisions of the Act of 2013 cannot be read to also exist in the Regulations of 1947. 16. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts, law, and the contentions of the rival parties, the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 inter-alia held that: - “(i) The Regulation of 1947, and the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, are enacted on the same subject, i.e. land, which is a subject of Concurrent List. There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in the Regulation of 1947, whereas the same is available in the RFCT & LARR Act. The object sought to be achieved by the Regulation Act 1947 and the RFCT & LARR Act are almost the same. And as such Regulation 1947 is inconsistent with the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 and Regulation of 1947 failed to withstand the test of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The land of the petitioners acquired for the construction of TAH and for construction of 33/11 Sub-Station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, all are required for the ‘public purpose’ and no classification for ‘public purpose’ is permissible. (iii) Regulation of 1947, and the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, enables the State to give the petitioners different treatment from another, equally situated owners. And as such the petitioners, who are discriminated against, are entitled to protection of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though a classification is sought to be made by the learned In-Charge Advocate General, yet the same is not based upon intelligible differentia, as they cannot be treated differently from the land owners whose lands were acquired for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, as in all the cases the lands are acquired for only one purpose, i.e. ‘public purpose’. (iv) The petitioners are entitled to compensation and solatium and interest in view of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, as the State cannot make any law in derogation of any provision of the said Act.” 17. (iv) The petitioners are entitled to compensation and solatium and interest in view of the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013, as the State cannot make any law in derogation of any provision of the said Act.” 17. A reading of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge makes it discernible that although the object sought to be achieved by the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 are almost same but, the Regulations of 1947 is inconsistent with the Act of 2013 and the Regulations of 1947 fails to withstand the test of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby that the Regulations of 1947, which is a State Act, would be repugnant to the Act of 2013, which is a Central Act. The other conclusion arrived is that although solatium and interest were paid in respect of some other acquisitions for construction of a 33/11 KV Sub-Station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, but all such other purposes and the purpose of acquisition for construction of the TAH are all for public purposes and therefore, no classification within the public purpose would be permissible. The other conclusion arrived is that the Regulations of 1947 does not enable the State to give the petitioners a different treatment from the land owners in respect of the other acquisition proceedings inasmuch as no intelligible differentia exists between the different land owners. It was also a conclusion that the writ petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest under the Act of 2013 and the State cannot make any law in derogation of the said Act. 18. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C)280(AP)/2020; WP(C) 302(AP)/2020; and WP(C) 303(AP)/2020, WA/15(AP)2022; WA/16(AP)2022; and WA/17(AP)2022 have been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh through the Secretary Land Management Department, The Deputy Commissioner Lower Siang District and The Chief Engineer (Highway) Western Zone, PWD. 19. By following the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C)280(AP)/2020 & Other writ petitions, a judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 in both WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021 were also rendered. Being aggrieved by the judgments dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021, WA 20(AP)/2022 and WA 21(AP)/2022 have been preferred by the NHIDCL. The NHIDCL was a respondent in the WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021 and is therefore also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C)280(AP)/2020 & Other writ petitions. Being aggrieved by the judgments dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021, WA 20(AP)/2022 and WA 21(AP)/2022 have been preferred by the NHIDCL. The NHIDCL was a respondent in the WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021 and is therefore also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C)280(AP)/2020 & Other writ petitions. WA/22(AP)/2022 and WA/23(AP)/2022 are by the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)5(AP)/2021 and WP(C)29(AP)/2021. 20. Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General In-Charge for the appellants in WA/15/2022, WA/16/2022, WA/17/2022, WA/22/2022, and WA/23/2022 has raised the contention that as the acquisition proceedings were made under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 and the provisions thereof not being challenged and on the other hand, the petitioners having accepted the same, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable for determining the compensation for the acquisitions. The other contention of the learned Advocate General In-Charge is that neither the Regulations of 1947 is repugnant to the Act of 2013, nor the issue of repugnancy had been raised in the writ petitions and therefore, the learned Single Judge had travelled beyond the pleadings. The further contention is that Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides only for a reasonable compensation, without providing for any solatium and interest. It is also the contention of the learned Advocate General In-Charge that as the Regulations of 1947 have received the assent of the Governor General, therefore, as per the provisions of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Regulations of 1947 would prevail over the Act of 2013 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 21. Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant NHIDC reiterates the contention of Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General In-Charge that the acquisitions having been made under Regulations of 1947, and there been no provision for solatium and interest under the said Regulations, the writ petitioners would be disentitled for solatium and interest. The other contention of Mr. B Dutta is that under provisions of Article 254 (2) of Constitution of India, the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Act of 2013 would have no applicability. By referring to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Hari Krishan Khosla reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, Mr. B Dutta is that under provisions of Article 254 (2) of Constitution of India, the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Act of 2013 would have no applicability. By referring to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Hari Krishan Khosla reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, Mr. B Dutta, learned Senior counsel has raised the contention that solatium is not required to be paid in the case of acquisitions. 22. In the conspectus of the contentions and rival contentions raised, the questions for determination would be: - (i) Whether the Regulations of 1947 would be repugnant to the Act of 2013. (ii) Whether the provisions of Act of 2013 are applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. (iii) Whether Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides for a different procedure for acquisition of land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh at a variation from the other established procedures. (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of solatium and interest in respect of the compensation paid to them. 23. Apart from the aforesaid questions for determination, a further question would be whether Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 is a substantive provision for acquisition of land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh or it is merely an enabling provision to acquire the Jhum lands, for which otherwise there is a restriction for alienation. Whether the Regulations of 1947 would be repugnant to the Act of 2013. 24. It is the submission of Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General In-Charge that the Regulations of 1947 have been given the assent by the then Governor- General and therefore, under the provisions Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the repugnancy contemplated under Article 254 (1) would be inapplicable. As the Regulations of 1947 would prevail, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and all such acquisitions would have to be done under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947. 25. Mr. As the Regulations of 1947 would prevail, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and all such acquisitions would have to be done under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947. 25. Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant NHIDCL also submits that there is no repugnancy between the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 and as the provisions of the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Act of 2013 would have no applicability. 26. Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that if any provision of law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by the Parliament, the law made by the State Legislature shall to the extent of the repugnancy be void. In order the law made by the State Legislature to be repugnant to the law made by the Parliament, there is also a requirement that both the laws must be on the same subject matter. 27. In order to appreciate as to whether the Regulations of 1947 would be repugnant to the Act of 2013, we examine as to on what subject matter the two legislations were enacted. 28. The long title and Section 5 of the Regulations of 1947 are as extracted:- “Whereas it is expedient to frame a Regulation in order to safeguard and regulate the rights of the tribes indigenous to the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tracts to Jhum land in the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract. Section 5 of the Regulations of 1947 is extracted as below:- (1) Jhum land to which a community has a customary right may not be transferred to another community or to any individual except with the permission of the land Conservator. (2) Jhum land to which an individual belonging to a village or community has a customary right may be community or to that village or community as a whole. It shall not be transferred to another village or community or to a member of another village or community except with the previous permission of the Land Conservator. (3) Nothing in this Section shall affect a transferred which is valid under any other provision of this Regulation.” 29. It shall not be transferred to another village or community or to a member of another village or community except with the previous permission of the Land Conservator. (3) Nothing in this Section shall affect a transferred which is valid under any other provision of this Regulation.” 29. A reading of the long title to the Regulations of 1947 makes it discernible that the Regulations of 1947 was enacted to safeguard and regulate the rights of the tribes indigenous over the Jhum land in Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tracts and Section 5 thereof makes it discernible that there is a restriction of alienation of the Jhum lands in the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tracts from being transferred to any other community or any other individual as well as to another village or community without the previous permission of the Land Conservator, which expression also includes the Deputy Commissioner. Sections 6, 7 and 8 also provides for certain other restrictions in the alienation of the Jhum lands. Section 5(3) provides that the restrictions shall not affect a transfer which otherwise would be valid under any other provision of the Regulations. 30. The aforesaid provisions in the Regulations of 1947 leads to a conclusion that the dominant purpose and the subject matter for which the Regulations were enacted was for regulating, safeguarding and protecting the interest of the tribes indigenous over the Jhum lands, which now has to be read to be in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 31. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides that the Government may acquire any Jhum land for a public purpose for which no formal acquisition shall be necessary but an opportunity shall be given to those having rights over the land to show cause against such acquisitions and reasonable compensation shall be paid for all such land required under the Section. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 is extracted as below:- “The Government may acquire any Jhum land required for a public purpose. No formal acquisition proceedings shall be necessary but an opportunity shall be given to those having rights in the land to show cause against such acquisition and reasonable compensation shall be paid for all land required under this section. No formal acquisition proceedings shall be necessary but an opportunity shall be given to those having rights in the land to show cause against such acquisition and reasonable compensation shall be paid for all land required under this section. Land so acquired shall, if relinquished by the Government at any time, be returned to the village, community or individual from whom it was acquired on refund, if any, of such compensation to the Government as the latter may decide.” 32. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides that the Government may acquire any Jhum lands required for public purpose and that reasonable compensation shall be paid for all such lands ‘required’ under the Section, in contradistinction to the expression ‘acquired’. As already provided the dominant purpose and the subject matter of the Regulations of 1947 is to regulate, safeguard and protect the tribes indigenous over the Jhum lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with restrictions on alienation of the Jhum lands. From such point of view, the provisions of Section 10 carves out an exception from such regulation, safeguarding and protection as well as restrictions on alienation by providing an enablement to the Government to acquire even any Jhum lands for public purpose. 33. Consequently, the provisions of Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 would have to be interpreted to be an enabling provision to carve out an exception to facilitate an acquisition by providing that reasonable compensation be paid for the required land. The expression ‘ required land’ appearing in the Section in contradistinction to the expression ‘ acquired land’ also leads to an understanding that the provisions of Section 10 is not a substantive provision for acquisition, whereas it is an enabling provision to facilitate an acquisition even in respect of Jhum lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 34. On the other hand, the Act of 2013 had been enacted for a transparent process for land acquisition for industrialization, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and to provide for just and fair compensation to the affected families whose lands have been acquired or proposed to be acquired and make provisions for their rehabilitation and settlement etc. A reading of the long title of the Act of 2013 makes it abundantly clear that the dominant purpose of the Act is for land acquisition alone and for matters incidental thereto. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 2013 also shows that the said Act was for a more enhanced protection and benefits to the land owners upon their land being acquired. 35. It is also worthy to note that the statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 2013, as well as Section 103 thereof, provides that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. The statement of objects and reasons and Section 103 of the Act of 2013 also gives an indication that even if the Regulations of 1947 is construed also to provide for land acquisition, still the Act of 2013 would be in addition to the Regulations of 1947 and not in derogation thereof. From such point of view also the question of the Regulations of 1947 being repugnant to the Act of 2013 can be answered. 36. In this respect, it is also noticed that the Regulations of 1947 have been enacted in exercise of the powers under Section 92(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 (for short ‘the Act of 1935’). Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935 is extracted as below:- “The Governor may make regulations for the peace and good governance of any area in the Province which is for the time being an excluded are, or a partially excluded area, and any regulations so made may repeal or amend any Act of the Federal Legislature, or of the Provincial Legislature, or any existing Indian law, which is for the time being applicable to the area in question. Regulations made under this subsection shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor-General and until assented to by him in his discretion shall have no effect, and the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the power of His Majesty to disallow Acts shall apply in relation to any such regulations assented to by the Governor-General as they apply in relation to Acts of a Provincial Legislature assented to by him.” 37. A reading of the provision of Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935 makes it discernible that the Governor is empowered to make Regulations in respect of the excluded or partially excluded areas for good governance. The power of the Governor under Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935 is a limited and restricted power to make a Regulation in an excluded or partially excluded area for good governance. When the provisions of the Regulations of 1947 is looked into, it is explicit that the said Regulations is to regulate, safeguard and protect the tribes indigenous over the Jhum lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with restrictions on alienation of the Jhum lands, which can be safely termed to be for the purpose of good governance as the Jhum lands of the tribes indigenous in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is sought to be protected. It is also an accepted position that prior to the creation of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, in its earlier forms, it was also known as Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract which were a part of excluded or partially excluded areas in the year 1947, when the Regulations of 1947 were framed in exercise of the powers under Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935. Although Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935 empowers the Governor to frame Regulations for good governance, the empowerment under the Act of 1935 to frame laws as regards to land acquisition was Section 100. As the Regulations of 1947 had been framed under Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935 and not Section 100, from such point of view also it has to be accepted that the Regulations of 1947 is not a law framed for the purpose of land acquisition simpliciter but for the purpose of good governance. 38. The very aspect that the Regulations of 1947 were framed in exercise of the powers under Section 92(2) of the Act of 1935, which is a power to frame Regulations for good governance, from such point of view also it has to be understood that the Regulations of 1947 are for the dominant purpose of good governance and not land acquisition. 39. 39. As it is an irresistible conclusion that the dominant purpose and subject matter of the Regulations of 1947 are to regulate, safeguard and protect the tribes indigenous over the Jhum lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with restrictions on alienation of the Jhum lands, which again is for the purpose for good governance and the dominant purpose and subject matter of the Act of 2013 is for land acquisition alone and for matters incidental, therefore, it has to be accepted that the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 are for two different purposes and subject matters, although incidentally Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 also provides for an enablement for land acquisition. As the subject matters of the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 are different, we have to understand that under the provisions of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, there can be no repugnancy between the two laws. 40. As we have arrived at a conclusion that there can be no repugnancy between the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013, therefore, the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India would also be inapplicable so as to render it that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in respect of land acquisition and the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable. 41. We further take note of the notification No. LM-20/2005 (Pt.)/1546 dated 20.03.2014 under the signature of the Secretary cum Revenue Commissioner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Land Management Department, wherein it had been provided that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has extended the Act of 2013 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. By virtue of such notification, it has to be construed that the Act of 2013 is applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, from the said notification point of view, there cannot remain any repugnancy between the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 and also that under the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the Act of 2013 would not be applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The notification dated 20.03.2014, providing that the Act of 2013 is applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is also in conformity with the provisions of the statement of objects and reasons and Section 103 of the Act of 2013, which provides that the Act is in addition and not in derogation of any other laws related to land acquisition. 42. Further the Regulations of 1947 is applicable in respect of Jhum lands which is a well-defined concept as defined under Section 2(b) of the Regulations and for protection of the rights of tribes indigenous to the Jhum lands. From such point of view, the submission raised by the appellants that the Act of 2013 would be not applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and all such land acquisitions made in the State would be governed by the Regulations of 1947 would also have to be unacceptable as the Regulations of 1947 can be made applicable only in respect of Jhum lands and not for all other types of lands which may also be acquired. 43. Section 2(b) of the Regulations of 1947 is extracted as below:- “(b) Jhum Lands means and includes all lands which any member or members of a village or community have customary rights to cultivate by means of shifting cultivation or to utilize by clearing jungle or grazing livestock provided that such village or community is in a permanent location but does not include:- (i) Any land which has been or is under process of being terraced for the purpose of permanent or semi-permanent cultivation whether by means of irrigation or not. (ii) Any land attached appurtenant to a dwelling house and used for the purposes of permanent cultivation, or (iii) Any land which in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner is subject to permanent cultivation.” Whether the provisions of Act of 2013 are applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 44. It is the submission of Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellants NHIDCL that the Regulations of 1947 having received the assent of the Governor General would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the said Regulation would be not repugnant to the Act of 2013, the Act of 2013 would be not be applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as per the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. 45. Mr. 45. Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel refers to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 27, in Pankajakshi (dead) through legal representatives and Ors. vs Chandrika and Ors., reported in (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 157, wherein it is provided as follows:- “This being the case, Article 254 of the Constitution of India would have no application to such a law for the simple reason that it is not a law made by the Legislature of a State but is an existing law continued by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India.” By referring to the aforesaid proposition, Mr. B. Dutta submits that the Regulations of 1947 is an existing law continued by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution of India and it being so Article 254 would have no application and therefore, the Regulations of 1947 being an existing law would have its applicability in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 46. As regards the submission of Mr. B Dutta, learned senior counsel that in view of the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as because it had received the assent of the Governor-General, it had already been held that there being no repugnancy between the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013, both the laws would have its applicability in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and it is not that only the Regulations of 1947 would prevail and the Act of 2013 will not be applicable. 47. With regard to the submission that the Regulations of 1947 is an existing law continued by Article 372 of the Constitution of India, we are in agreement with the learned senior counsel about the applicability of the said Regulations in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. But, again such applicability of the Regulations would be not construed to be only for a purpose of it being considered to be a provision for land acquisition simpliciter, without taking into aspect that the Regulations of 1947 are framed with the dominant purpose and subject matter for regulating, safeguarding and protecting the rights of the tribes indigenous to Jhum lands and the restrictions provided therein against alienation of Jhum lands. 48. 48. Further, as per the notification dated 20.03.2014, providing that the Act of 2013 is applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh also answers the question that the Act of 2013 would be applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 49. The submission that as because the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in view of the provisions Article 254 (2) and therefore, the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable, the said submission of Mr. Dutta, is self-contradictory. On one hand, it the submission of the learned senior counsel by referring to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of Pankajakshi (Supra) that Article 254 of the Constitution of India will not be applicable in respect of the Regulations of 1947 as it is an existing law continued under Article 372, and on the other hand it is the submission that by virtue of Article 254 (2) the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the purpose of land acquisitions and as such, the law made by the Parliament in the form of the Act of 2013 would have no applicability in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. If according to the learned senior counsel the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India would not be applicable in respect of the Regulations of 1947, it would be an approbation and reprobation to suggest that as because of Article 254 (2) the Regulations of 1947 would prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Act of 2013 would not be applicable. 50. It is also taken note that as per the provisions of Section 3 of the North- East Frontier Agency (Extension of laws) Regulation, 1960, the Act of 1894 had been extended to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Section 4 of the Arunachal Pradesh Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1982 provides that every enactment unless the contrary is expressly provided therein shall apply to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, which at that relevant time also included the Act of 1894. As the Act of 2013 had repealed the Act of 1894, accordingly, it has to be read that by implication the Act of 2013 had also been extended and made applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 51. As the Act of 2013 had repealed the Act of 1894, accordingly, it has to be read that by implication the Act of 2013 had also been extended and made applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 51. Accordingly, the question raised on the applicability of the Act of 2013 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is answered in favour of its applicability. Whether Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides for a different procedure for acquisition of land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh at a variation from the other established procedures. 52. It is the submission of both Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General Incharge for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant NHIDC that the acquisitions of lands in the State of Arunachal Pradesh are made in the exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 which is a substantive provision for acquisitions and as the Regulations of 1947 prevail in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, all such acquisitions are made under Section 10 of the said Regulations. In fact, by referring to the notices of acquisitions it is pointed out that all such notices in respect of the petitioners were issued under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 and all the acquisitions were for the public purpose. Accordingly, it the submission of both the learned Advocate General In-Charge and the learned senior counsel that the acquisitions being for a public purpose, the authorities are empowered to invoke Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 and the acquisition process would be governed by the provisions of Section 10 and the provisions of any other laws of acquisition would be inapplicable. 53. A reading of Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947, which is extracted in paragraph 32 hereinabove makes it discernible that it provides that the Government may acquire any Jhum lands for public purpose and for the purpose no formal acquisition proceedings shall be necessary but an opportunity shall be given to those having rights over the Jhum lands to show cause against such acquisitions, but a reasonable compensation shall be paid for all the lands required under the said Section. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 provides for an additional entitlement to the Jhum lands owners that they may also object to the proposed acquisitions and such entitlement flows from Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 and up to that stage of affording the Jhum lands owners to raise an objection, no formal proceedings are necessary. But, after the stage of affording the Jhum lands owners an opportunity to object to the proposed acquisition, Section 10 provides that reasonable compensation be paid for all the required lands. The expression ‘ required lands’ for the purpose of payment of reasonable compensation in contradistinction with the expression ‘ acquired lands’ makes it discernible that up to the stage of giving the opportunity to the Jhum lands owners to object to the proposed acquisitions, no acquisitions of any lands takes place and therefore, for the purpose of payment of reasonable compensation in Section 10 the expression ‘ required lands’ is used i.e., up to the stage of invoking the provisions of Section 10 no acquisition takes place and therefore, for the purpose of payment of reasonable compensation the expression ‘required lands’ is used. 54. Accordingly, it has to be understood that Section 10 is an enabling provision to carve out an exception that even Jhum lands can also be acquired in spite of the Regulation, safeguarding and protecting of the rights of the tribes indigenous to Jhum lands and the restrictions provided therein against alienation of Jhum lands. In exercise of the enabling provision to acquire the Jhum lands, Section 10 provides for an opportunity to the Jhum lands owners to raise an objection to the proposed acquisition and therefore, till such stage, there is no formal acquisition proceeding. But, after the stage of the objection, the land is referred as ‘required lands’ meaning thereby that if the authorities pursue with the proposed acquisitions, the compensation to be paid for the ‘required lands’ would be governed by the provisions of the relevant law of acquisition that may be/have been in force. 55. But, after the stage of the objection, the land is referred as ‘required lands’ meaning thereby that if the authorities pursue with the proposed acquisitions, the compensation to be paid for the ‘required lands’ would be governed by the provisions of the relevant law of acquisition that may be/have been in force. 55. Although for interpreting Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 we have held that after the stage of objection the land is referred as ‘ required lands’, meaning thereby that if the authorities pursue with the proposed acquisitions, formal acquisitions proceeding under the relevant law in force would have to be initiated and the procedure thereof be followed, but we further provide that in respect of all such acquisitions which had been completed, where the compensation has been assessed and paid, although done purportedly under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947, such proceedings shall be deemed to have been pursuant to acquisition proceedings under the relevant laws in force at that relevant point of time. But at the same time, in respect of all such pending and future acquisition proceedings that may be initiated, the applicability of Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 be done by carrying out the computation of compensation as provided in the Act of 2013. 56. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 being an enabling provisions enables the State authorities to also acquire Jhum Lands by giving an opportunity to the Jhum lands owners to raise an objection against the proposed acquisitions in spite of the restrictions of alienation of Jhum lands provided under the said Regulations and for the purpose of giving such opportunity to raise objection no formal acquisition proceeding is necessary. Even after the stage of providing the opportunity to raise objection is over, for the purpose of payment of compensation the land is still referred as ‘ required lands’ which gives the indication that from that stage onwards the acquisition proceedings would be initiated for the purpose of payment of reasonable compensation. 57. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 is special law to enable the State authorities to even acquire Jhum lands by carving out an exception to the restrictions on alienation of Jhum lands provided in the said Regulations. 57. Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 is special law to enable the State authorities to even acquire Jhum lands by carving out an exception to the restrictions on alienation of Jhum lands provided in the said Regulations. But, the provisions of the special law being limited to the requirement of giving an opportunity to the Jhum lands owners to raise an objection against the proposed acquisitions and there being no further provisions providing for the procedure as to how the reasonable compensation is to be computed, and the provisions itself providing for a requirement to pay a reasonable compensation, we are of the view that for the purpose of computing the reasonable compensation and the procedure and requirements to be adopted, the general law in force on the same subject i.e., of computing the reasonable compensation would be applicable and have to be followed. The said view would also be in conformity with the legal principle that if the provisions of the special law are inadequate to provide for the required principles and procedures to be adopted, in respect of the residual part thereof the principles and procedures provided under the general law for the same purpose is to be followed. 58. Accordingly, it is held that Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 do not provide for a procedure which would be at a variance with any other established procedure, which in the present case would be the law relating to land acquisitions prevailing at the relevant point of time. Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of solatium and interest in respect of the compensation paid to them. 59. Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellants NHIDCL submits by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari krishan Khosla (Supra) that as per the proposition laid therein solatium is not required to be paid. We have considered the submission of learned senior counsel against the requirement of paying solatium by referring to the proposition in Hari krishan Khosla (Supra). In Hari Krishan Khosla (Supra), the land was initially requisitioned under the relevant law and at that stage the requisition compensation had been paid and the land owner had parted with his land. Subsequently, the land was acquired and the land value compensation was paid. In Hari Krishan Khosla (Supra), the land was initially requisitioned under the relevant law and at that stage the requisition compensation had been paid and the land owner had parted with his land. Subsequently, the land was acquired and the land value compensation was paid. At that stage, the land owner claimed that he would also be entitled to payment of solatium, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in its pronouncement. Solatium is paid not as a value of the land but, to compensate the parting of the land by the land owner. As the compensation for requisition, at which stage the parting of the land took place, had already been paid, in such circumstance, in the facts of the said case, it was held that solatium was not required to be paid. 60. The aforesaid proposition is referred by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 38 in Union of India Vs Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , which is extracted as below:- “What gets acquired is only rights as to ownership, possession having been taken over by requisition. In addition, the owner has already received compensation for remaining out of possession during the period when the property is under requisition. For all these reasons, the aforesaid judgments are wholly distinguishable from the acquisition measure in this case” 61. A reading of the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) makes it discernible that it was held by the Supreme Court in Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) that solatium will not be available at the time of acquisition in respect of those cases, where the land owner had parted with the land pursuant to a process of requisition for which requisition compensation had already been paid. 62. Accordingly, the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. B. Dutta that solatium is not required to be paid for acquisition of land would have to be rejected. 63. 62. Accordingly, the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. B. Dutta that solatium is not required to be paid for acquisition of land would have to be rejected. 63. In view of the conclusions arrived that both the Regulations of 1947 and the Act of 2013 would be applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, where the Regulations of 1947 is for the dominant purpose of regulating, safeguarding and protection of the tribes indigenous over the Jhum lands, where Section 10 provides for an enabling provision to also acquire Jhum lands by carving out an exception, and Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 providing for a reasonable compensation to be paid to the ‘required lands’ upon being acquired, where the reasonable compensation is to be computed by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of law in force, which in the present case would be the Act of 2013, we accordingly set aside the communication dated 12.07.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, by which the Lawyer of the petitioners was informed that as the acquisition was done under Section 10 the Regulations of 1947 therefore, no solatium is required to be paid under the law. 64. Accordingly, it is declared that the writ petitioners are entitled to the payment of solatium as well as the interest as provided in the Act of 2013 or any other relevant law of acquisition that may have been in force when the acquisitions have taken place and the stand of the authorities that solatium and payment of interest are not required as the acquisitions are made under Section 10 of the Regulations of 1947 to be unsustainable. 65. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C) 280(AP)/2020 & Other writ petitions and the judgment and order both dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)5 (AP)/2021 and WP(C) 29(AP)/2021 in respect of the conclusion that the Regulations of 1947 is repugnant to the Act of 2013 is set aside, while retaining the conclusion that the writ petitioners would be entitled to the payment of solatium and interest in respect of the acquired land as per the Act of 2013. But in a given case where the award had been passed prior to coming into effect of the Act of 2013, the solatium and/or interest, as the case may be would be governed by the provisions of the relevant law of acquisition that may be/have been in force. 66. The appellants, i.e. the authorities under the State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the NHIDC, are accordingly conjointly directed by doing the needful to pay the solatium and interest on the compensation paid to the writ petitioners on the value of the acquired land as per the provisions of the relevant law of acquisition that may be/have been in force. The requirement be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 67. Writ appeals stands disposed of in terms indicated above.