Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 337 (GAU)

Union Of India v. Geeta Mihu, S/o Shri M. Mihu

2022-03-31

A.M.BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Geeta Mihu and Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Although the Major, Quartermaster for CO, 19 JAK RIF, 99 APO is arrayed as respondent 5 in this appeal, Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to delete the said respondent. Accordingly, the respondent no.5 stands deleted. 2. The writ petitioner, Geeta Mihu, a resident of Koyla Basti village in the Dibang Valley district had instituted WP(C) 511(AP)/2019 with the following prayers: “I. A writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 12.12.2019 issued by the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar whereby the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 issued for acquisition of land measuring 105.144 acres situated at Koyla basti/village of Dibang Valley District for the Indian Army has been cancelled in violation of Section in violation of Section 36 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in violation of Principle of natural justice II. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the concerned respondent authority most particularly the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 to immediately pay/deposit before the Deputy Commissioner, Anini the land compensation award amounting to Rs.25,01,97,399/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crore One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Nine) only against the petitioner’s land measuring 1.5.144 acres situated at Koyla (Karu) village of Dibang Valley District acquired for the Indian Army under Section 23 of the RFCT LARRA, 2013 vide award order no. DV/LM171/18-19 dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini. Further along with additional compensation amount of 75% of the total compensation amount award in terms of section 40(5) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 along with interest accrued thereon for onward payment/disbursement to the petitioner And/or Pass such other order/orders or direction as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. A reading of the prayer goes to show that an order dated 12.12.2019 of the Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh is sought to be set aside. By the said order dated 12.12.2019, the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 had been cancelled. The order dated 12.12.2019 had been assailed on the ground of it being passed in violation of section 36 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act of 2013) as well as in violation of principles of natural justice. The second prayer is for a payment of Rs.25,01,97,399/-, being the land compensation award that was arrived at in the resultant land acquisition proceeding. 4. The order dated 12.12.2019 is a communication from the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district providing the approval of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for cancellation of the Notification No. LM-327/2016/2441 dated 08.03.2019 in respect of the land measuring 105.144 acres for establishment of Army Post at Koyla Basti village in the Dibang Valley district. 5. The notification dated 08.03.2019 is of the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued under section 40 of the Act of 2013 notifying that the land measuring 105.144 acres mentioned therein is urgently needed for establishment of Army Post keeping in view security of the country. 6. Section 40 of the Act of 2013, inter alia, provides for an emergency power upon the appropriate Government to take possession of any land needed for public propose and such land thereupon shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances, although no such award may have been made for the purpose and it would come into effect on the expiry of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the notice under section 21 of the Act of 2013. In other words, the authority of the appropriate Government to issue a notice under section 40 of the Act of 2013 would have to be preceded by a notice under section 21 of the Act of 2013 so as to give effect to the taking over of possession on the expiry of 30 (thirty) days from the publication of notice under section 21 of the Act of 2013. 7. 7. In the writ petition, it is the stand of the writ petitioner Geeta Mihu that the Colonel, Headquarters of 2 Mountain Division by letter dated 18.02.2010 had requested the Commissioner, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to acquire 150 acres of land in Dibang Valley district, amongst others, for the purpose of accommodation of Army units, logistic bases, dealing, infrastructure, etc. The letter dated 18.02.2010, which is annexed as Annexure-1 series to the writ petition is a communication from Colonel Tumul Varma, Colonel Quartermaster General for General Officer, Commanding addressed to Shri Tajon Talo, Commissioner, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh stating about the Army’s requirement of land to create/improve the infrastructure at Arunachal Pradesh Headquarters 2 Mountain Division. Accordingly, a request was made for acquisition of, amongst others, 150 acres of land at Anini in the Dibang Valley district. In response thereof, the Commissioner, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by a communication dated 16.06.2010 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, amongst others, made a request for acquisition of about 150 acres of land at Anini in the Dibang Valley district. The Director of Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by his communication dated 20.03.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district referred to a joint inspection of the land in question. In the said process, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district issues the notification dated 23.09.2016 under section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (in short Jhum Regulation, 1947), which also included the land of the petitioner Geeta Mihu at Koyla Basti in the Dibang Valley district. In between, there are certain communications between the Director of Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district regarding providing of certain documents and materials to carry forward the process of the acquisition of the land. Another notification under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 dated 18.01.2017 was issued by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, East Dibang Valley district was directed to take possession of the land stated therein. 8. Another notification under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 dated 18.01.2017 was issued by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, East Dibang Valley district was directed to take possession of the land stated therein. 8. At this stage, there is a communication dated 16.01.2017 from the Defence Estate, Jorhat Circle, Jorhat addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) with respect to the notification for acquisition under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to stop further action for acquisition under the Jhum Regulation, 1947 till a decision is received from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. There is another communication dated 21.06.2017 from the Defence Estate Officer, Jorhat addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district in respect of the acquisition proceeding under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 requesting that certain documents be provided so as to intimate the local military authority and also for obtaining the sanction from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The said communication reiterates the earlier communication dated 16.01.2017 wherein the office of the Defence Estate Officer had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to stop the land acquisition proceeding till the sanction of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence is received. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district in response thereof by his communication dated 04.07.2017 informs the Defence Estate Officer that the documents sought for by the communication dated 21.06.2017 is being provided. But no mention was made that the request to stop the acquisition proceeding had been implemented and stopped. 9. In the meantime, the petitioner Geeta Mihu in a non-judicial stamp paper issued a willingness certificate from the land owners that the land owners are willing to offer the land in question to the Army authorities. Also in the meantime, the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by a communication dated 13.11.2016 inform the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district about the rates of the various classes of land for the purpose of acquisition. 10. Different no objection certificates are also available from various other department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as regards the said land, providing that the departments of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh have no objection to the proposed acquisition. 11. 10. Different no objection certificates are also available from various other department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as regards the said land, providing that the departments of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh have no objection to the proposed acquisition. 11. In the aforesaid circumstance, there is a communication dated 06.07.2017 from the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh providing for a draft notification inviting claims and objections under section 40 of the Act of 2013 for acquisition of the land at Koyla Basti village. No material is available as to how a proceeding that was initiated under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 got itself converted into a proceeding under the Act of 2013 so as to bring in a requirement of issuing a notification under section 40 of the Act of 2013. In the meantime, there is a note dated 31.01.2018 providing that a Board of Officers would assemble at a given place, date and time to be fixed by the presiding officer to prepare the document for obtaining the sanction of the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of acquisition of 105.144 acres of private land of Koyla Basti village in the Dibang Valley district. In the process, there is also a declaration dated 13.07.2017 of the petitioner Geeta Mihu that 105.144 acres of land at Koyla Basti village identified by the Indian Army would be handed over to them on the condition that the land be permanently acquired by the Indian Army. On 19.03.2018, the petitioner Geeta Mihu made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district requesting that the acquisition process be expedited. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district vide a communication dated 10.09.2018 addressed to certain authorities in the Army had requested that the matter be looked into to avoid legal complication and that the land owner Geeta Mihu all along insisted upon permanent acquisition of land instead of giving the land on hire basis. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district again informs the Defence Estate Officer by a communication dated 06.11.2018 that the land owner is insisting on a permanent acquisition of the land. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district again informs the Defence Estate Officer by a communication dated 06.11.2018 that the land owner is insisting on a permanent acquisition of the land. 12. By another communication dated 15.12.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district provides the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh again provided with a draft notification for land acquisition under section 40 of the Act of 2013. In the aforesaid circumstance, section the 40 notification under the Act of 2013 was issued by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The Principal Director of Defence Estate, Eastern Command, Kolkata by communication dated 15.05.2019 requested the Defence Estate Officer at Itanagar to resubmit the DP as well as the comprehensive proposal for obtaining the necessary Government sanction for the acquisition. The Defence Estate Officer, Itanagar, in response thereof, by his communication dated 30.07.2019 informs the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Eastern Command at Kolkata with a proposal as required and also a request to obtain the necessary sanction from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. In the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district by his communication dated 27.05.2019 to the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh forwards an Award under section 30 of the Act of 2013 providing for a land compensation amounting to Rs.25,01,97,399/-, which was in the name of the petitioner Geeta Mihu. 13. The Director on behalf of the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Eastern Command, Kolkata vide a communication dated 21.10.2019 informs the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh with a request to cancel the notification dated 08.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district. It had already been taken note that the notification dated 08.03.2019 is the notification issued by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh under section 40 of the Act of 2013. Accordingly, by another communication dated 07.11.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district was requested to cancel the notification. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district in his response by the communication dated 28.11.2019 wrote to the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh informing that there is a representation by the petitioner Geeta Mihu not to cancel the notification in as much as all the required formalities had been followed by for the purpose. 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district in his response by the communication dated 28.11.2019 wrote to the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh informing that there is a representation by the petitioner Geeta Mihu not to cancel the notification in as much as all the required formalities had been followed by for the purpose. 14. In the aforesaid circumstance, WP(C) 511(AP)/2019 was instituted for setting aside the cancellation order dated 12.12.2019 by which the notification under section 40 of the Act of 2013 dated 08.03.2019 was cancelled. 15. Without going into the further factual aspects of the matter and the various stands taken by the respondents in the writ petition, we take note of that by the judgment and order dated 19.03.2021 in WP(C) 511(AP)/2019, the writ petition was allowed by arriving at a conclusion that under the Act of 2013 when the award was passed and notified, it was final between the collector and the parties interested in the land acquisition and therefore, it would be impermissible under the law to cancel a process for acquisition. In his judgment, the learned Single Judge took note of that on the expiry of 30 (thirty) days from the publication of a notice under section 21 of the Act of 2013, when such possession is taken, the land in question vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge arrives at his conclusion that though the possession of the land had been taken by the Army in the year 2012 and the award had been notified in the meantime, nothing had been paid to the land owners. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to do the needful within a period of 6 (six) months so that the award made in favour of the petitioner is duly honoured. 16. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this writ appeal is instituted by the authorities in the Defence Estate on the ground that neither the acquisition proceeding nor award are maintainable in law and accordingly, the direction of the learned Single Judge to honour the award made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district would also be unsustainable. 17. Mr. 16. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this writ appeal is instituted by the authorities in the Defence Estate on the ground that neither the acquisition proceeding nor award are maintainable in law and accordingly, the direction of the learned Single Judge to honour the award made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district would also be unsustainable. 17. Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant in the Defence Estates raises an issue that the entire acquisition proceeding was initiated on the basis of a communication dated 18.02.2010 of the Colonel, Quartermaster General for the General Officer, Commanding Officer made through the Commissioner, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is the submission that the Colonel, Quartermaster General for the General Officer, Commanding Officer is a part of the operational units of the Army and it is not the appropriate authority to either initiate or make request for acquisition of any land for the Army and therefore, the initiation of the proceeding for the acquisition itself was without jurisdiction and on the basis of a communication of an authority, who is not authorized under the law to do so. The second contention raised is that by the communication dated 16.01.2017 of the Defence Estate Officer, Jorhat Circle, Jorhat, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district was specifically requested to stop further process of acquisition under the Jhum Regulation, 1947 till a final decision on the acquisition is received from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, which was again reiterated in the communication dated 21.06.2017. It is the contention of the appellants that the authorities in the Defence Estate being appropriate authority on the question of requirement of acquisition of any land for defence purpose, when a specific request was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to stop the acquisition proceeding, it was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to order the same and not to proceed further with the acquisition. If the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district in non adherence thereof further proceeds to issue the notification under section 40 of the Act of 2013 and thereafter, issues an Award for compensation for the acquisition, such notifications under section 40 of the Act of 2013 as well as the Award would be unsustainable in law, as well as, not binding on the appellant authorities. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid aspects of the matter was not taken due note of by the learned Single Judge while arriving at his conclusion that once an award made had attain finality, there cannot be any further question to honour the award. The learned Single Judge also arrived at a conclusion that the possession of the land in question was obtained in the year 2012 and therefore, under section 21 of the Act of 2013, the process thereof cannot be reversed any further. In this aspect, it is the submission of Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant, Defence Estate authorities that, it is the admitted position between the parties that in the year 2012, the land in question was taken on lease by the Army authorities against payment of rent and the possession taken was in respect of such lease arrangement and it was not a possession being handed over under the Act of 2013. 18. Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Geeta Mihu on the other hand raises the counter contention that various communications between the parties as well as the notification under section 40 of the Act of 2013 and the Award made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district would lead to a situation that the acquisition process was completed and therefore, it cannot be subsequently reversed. A contention made in the writ petition is also reiterated that even though the land in question was taken by the Army authorities on lease, the rent thereof had not been paid to the land owner writ petitioner and therefore, it is incumbent upon the Army authorities to permanently acquire the land. 19. Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the authorities in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district submits that otherwise the authorities in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh being the appropriate Government had followed due procedure of law in completing the acquisition proceeding and therefore, it would be binding on all. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 21. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 21. It is the stand of the appellant Defence Estate authorities that an acquisition proceeding for the requirement of the Army cannot be initiated by an officer involved in the operating units of the Army, and appropriate procedure is for the Defence Estate authorities to initiate the process. The officer in the operating unit may make his request to the Defence Estate authorities for initiating the process, but the said authority do not have his own independent authority to actually start the acquisition process. Be that as it may, we have taken note of that the communication of the concerned operating unit requesting for an initiation of the acquisition process is dated 18.02.2010, but in the meantime, records have been produced before the Court that there was a lease arrangement between the land owner and the authorities of the Army that from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2017 there was an agreement for hiring the land on a temporary basis against payment of the hiring charges. Although we are not expressing any view as to whether there was a subsequent lease arrangement between the land owners and the Army authorities, but perhaps the earlier communication from an officer of the operating unit of the Army requesting for acquisition of the land may lose its force in view of the subsequent agreement for a lease between the parties although we are leaving the question open to be decided by the appropriate authorities. Be that as it may, pursuant to such communication dated 18.02.2010, the Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued notification under section 10 under the Jhum Regulation, 1947 for acquisition of the land and that was made some time on 18.01.2017. But again, as already noted above, there are communications from the Defence Estate authorities to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district to stop the acquisition proceeding that were purportedly initiated under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 and without giving due consideration to the communications from the Defence Estate authorities to stop the acquisition proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district issued the notification under section 40 of the Act of 2013 notifying that the land of the petitioner would be acquired. It is again difficult to apprehend, and no materials are available before the Court, as to how a purported proceeding initiated under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation, 1947 itself got converted to an acquisition proceeding under the Act of 2013. It is stated that the same happened because of a communication of Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Be that as it may, the said aspect also requires to be gone into by the authorities as to how there can be a transformation from one form of acquisition proceeding to another, whether the two different sets of law provide for two different procedure. We are saying so as because the procedural requirement of an acquisition under the Jhum Regulation, 1947 and that of the Act of 2013 would be different from the perspective of the procedure and implication of the acquisition. 22. Under section 10 of the Jhum Regulation 1947, there is a provision that the land so acquired may be relinquished by the Government at any time to be returned to the village community or individual from whom it was acquired on refund, and if any, upon such compensation that they may have to pay. Whereas under the Act of 2013, the relevant provision applicable in such event would be under section 93 of the Act. 23. Be that as it may, we find certain procedural irregularities in the acquisition process that was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district as well as the authorities in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in as much as without there being a notification under section 21 of the Act of 2013 a notification was issued under section 40 of the said Act. The implication of a notification under section 40 is that after expiry of 30 (thirty) days from the notification under section 21 of the Act of 2013, there is a handing over of possession of land in question to the authorities by the land owners whether or not the Award had been made. Therefore, in the absence of notification under section 21 of the Act of 2013, it is difficult to comprehend that the handing over of possession as provided under section 40 of the Act of 2013 had taken place. Therefore, in the absence of notification under section 21 of the Act of 2013, it is difficult to comprehend that the handing over of possession as provided under section 40 of the Act of 2013 had taken place. The earlier handing over of possession is pursuant to a lease agreement in the year 2012, which cannot be construed to be a handing over of possession of land under the Act of 2013 for the purpose of acquisition. 24. From the aforesaid conclusions, with great respect, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred to an extent and the aforesaid relevant aspects were not gone into while issuing the direction to comply with the award by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district. 25. Again, at the same time, it is the submission of Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the land owner, writ petitioner that even if it is understood that the acquisition proceeding was under the Act of 2013, there is a requirement of the authorities to give the land owners an opportunity of hearing before the acquisition proceeding can be withdrawn or cancelled. Although section 93 of the Act of 2013 may not specifically says so, but at the same time, we find sufficient force in the said submission that as the land of the petitioner have been in occupation of the Army authorities and they desire to have their land acquired and the process thereof had been initiated and completed, although may be with some irregularity, the writ petitioner owner is at least entitled to an opportunity of being heard by the authorities of the Defence Estate as well as the Army on the claim of his right that the land is required to be acquired. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner would have a legal right to be heard on the aspect that it is an admitted question of fact that the land in question is under the occupation and the possession of the Army authorities is from the year 2012 and therefore if it is not an acquisition, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of appropriate rent for such purpose. Although Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant Defence Estate authorities states that the rent for the occupied land have been regularly paid, but no material is available before the Court to arrive at any such conclusion. 26. Although Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel for the appellant Defence Estate authorities states that the rent for the occupied land have been regularly paid, but no material is available before the Court to arrive at any such conclusion. 26. In the circumstance, it is agreed between the parties that the interest of justice would be met if the writ petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing by an appropriate authority in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. We are also in agreement with the said proposal in as much as materials indicate that there may be a difference of view between the authorities in the Defence Estate and the authorities of the Army in the operational units on the requirement of the land on a permanent basis for acquisition. As the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence would be an authority having control over both the authorities, it would be more appropriate for the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence to look into the matter and arrive at a reasoned decision as to whether the land in question is required for acquisition. Accordingly, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence is directed to make available an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner Geeta Mihu on the entire issues in the dispute raised and in doing so, the Secretary may also delegate the responsibly of giving the hearing to any other official in the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence, but such official should not be below the rank of given particular level so that an appropriate decision can be taken even by that authority. 27. The authorities in the Ministry of Defence in the Government of India shall firstly decide on the question whether the land of the petitioner, which is under the occupation of Army from the year 2012 is required to be acquired on a permanent basis or not. If yes, appropriate measures may be made for completing the acquisition proceeding by following the required procedure of law. If on the other hand, the decision is that the land would not be required on a permanent basis and therefore, no acquisition would be required, appropriate mechanism and arrangement be arrived at with the petitioner as to how to compensate him for the land being occupied by the Army in the form of payment of rent or in other manner. In doing so the authorities in the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence shall find out from the records as to the rate on which the rent is/was required to be paid and for which months the same had been paid. After arriving at such finding, the balance amount of rent be paid forthwith. Even if the decision arrived is that the land would be acquired, the rent payable up to such acquisition up to such time when the acquisition would become effective be paid. 28. We are providing the opportunity of hearing in as much as we have not arrived at any conclusion that the acquisition proceeding that was done so rightly under the Act of 2013 or it was required to have been continued under the Jhum Regulation, 1947, which again prescribes for a different sets of law. Therefore, the requirement of this order may be a slight deviation from the requirement of both the Jhum Regulation, 1947 and the Act of 2013, but are of the view taken may ends of justice of both the land owners as well as the Defence Estate authorities. 29. For the purpose, the authorities in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence shall inform the petitioner about the date, place and time of the hearing to be given. On being informed, petitioner may appear before the authorities with all relevant materials and make all the submissions he may desire to make, substantiating with the provisions of law and thereafter, the authorities in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence may pass any reasoned order as indicated above. In the hearing, the petitioner would also be at liberty to take appropriate stand on the rent that is required to be paid and form which period. We further provide that in the event, a decision of the authorities in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence is to acquire the land in a permanent manner, a fresh requisition proceeding be initiated under the provision of law by recalling the all other notifications and communications that were issued in the earlier process and the same be also brought to its logical as expeditiously as possible and in that event, till such acquisition proceeding, if any is initiated, the authorities in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence shall continue to pay the rent applicable to the petitioner. The requirement of passing the reasoned order be done within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 30. If the authorizes cannot arrive at any conclusive decision to either acquire the land or to pay appropriate rent to the petitioner, necessary arrangements be made to return the land back the petitioner. 31. With the aforesaid modification, the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 511(AP)/2019 stands set aside.