JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel for the Land Management Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. 2. The petitioners, 18 (Eighteen) in numbers, have jointly filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The background facts of the present petition can be summarized as under: (i) During 2011 and 2015, the writ petitioners purchased their respective plots of land located at backside of Naharlagun Helipad, and since then, some of the writ petitioners had been staying there with their family members by constructing dwelling houses until they were evicted therefrom on 15.07.2019. (ii) The Additional District Magistrate, Capital Complex, cum Chief Estate Officer carried out an eviction on 15.07.2019 and demolished the dwelling houses of the petitioners. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 shows that such demolition has been carried out in exercise of power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. (iii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction, the writ petitioners under the banner of Helipad Land owner Forum, jointly filed a representation on 18.07.2019 before the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State. Subsequently, by letter dated 30.07.2019 the State Government directed the Additional District Magistrate to hold back further eviction till the finalization of obstacle limitation survey of Naharlagun Helipad by the competent authority. (iv) Thereafter, pursuant to a meeting held on 11.10.2019, under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, a decision was taken to effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, should assess the land required near the boundary of present Helipad for the landing and taking off safely. (v) The Deputy Commissioner, by its order dated 04.11.2019, constituted a seven members Board to assess the affected land and the properties damaged during the eviction process as well as other properties likely to be affected for the required extension of the Helipad. The Board submitted its report on 28.01.2020. (vi) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, forwarded the verification report of the affected land to the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for necessary action. but till today the petitioners has not been paid any compensation. 4. The Board submitted its report on 28.01.2020. (vi) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, forwarded the verification report of the affected land to the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for necessary action. but till today the petitioners has not been paid any compensation. 4. From the perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents it is crystal clear that the land belongs to the petitioners and some other persons and the lands were private land. From the pleadings of the State respondents, it is also crystal clear that no proceeding/procedure for acquisition of such land was initiated and the petitioners were evicted inhumanly from their land under purported exercise of power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. on the alleged ground of obstruction in landing and taking-off helicopter at the Helipad and after such eviction and demolition of the dwelling houses of the petitioner, the state is now projecting that it will acquire the land and compensate the petitioners. 5. Section 133 Cr.P.C. empowers District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate to remove any unlawful obstruction or nuisance from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public. 6. The said Section also provides that the Magistrate can also pass conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order. 7. The explanation to the said Section clarifies that a “public place” includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and ground left unoccupied for sanitary or re-creative purpose. 8. In the case in hand, the eviction and demolition were carried out on the ground that there already exists an order of prohibition, prohibiting construction of building within the limits of 100 meters crest of the outer parapet of these helipads and mandating that no trees shall be planted or other infrastructures shall be created/developed or any land within the limits of 100 meters from the helipad. Such prohibitory notification dated 04.02.2011, was issued by the Commissioner (Civil Aviation), Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 9. Such prohibitory notification dated 04.02.2011, was issued by the Commissioner (Civil Aviation), Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 9. Though it is not discernible under what authority of law the said notification was issued, the said notification dated 04.02.2011, clearly shows that by way of the notification, all Deputy Commissioners were asked to promulgate the order in District Gazette. However, no such Gazette notification was issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioners. 10. Subsequently, on the request of the Secretary (Civil Aviation), a Prohibitory Order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was issued on 28.06.2019 by the Additional District Magistrate, Itanagar. The Prohibitory Order dated 28.06.2019 issued under Section 133 Cr.P.C. shows that a direction was issued prohibiting individuals not to construct/erect any building or structure or infrastructure including planting of trees within the limit of 100 mtrs from the crest of the outer parapet of helipads of Naharlagun with a further direction to remove the structures erected by the petitioners herein. Therefore, it is crystal clear that when the petitioners constructed their houses, there was no prohibitory order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and they had already constructed their dwelling houses over their private land. 11. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the findings of the learned Additional District Magistrate that the petitioners and the similarly situated persons are unauthorized occupant cannot sustain in law and the facts of the present case inasmuch by the time the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was issued on 28.06.2019, the petitioners had already constructed their dwelling houses. 12. In the case in hand, the State was under bounden duty to balance conflicting interest of the safety of the passenger of the Helicopter and the right of the petitioners herein. However, same has not been done and the petitioners are evicted from their Private lands by demolishing their houses without any due process of law and purportedly in exercise of power under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. which this Court cannot approve, more particularly in the manner the said power has been exercised. Fact remains that helicopters were landing in the helipad and communication dated 30.07.2019 reflects that the limitation survey is not final. The order dated 04.11.2019 shows that lands are required for extension of the helipad 13. The facts also remains that by way of filing affidavit, the respondents themselves had admitted that the lands where the evictions were carried out belongs to the petitioners. The order dated 04.11.2019 shows that lands are required for extension of the helipad 13. The facts also remains that by way of filing affidavit, the respondents themselves had admitted that the lands where the evictions were carried out belongs to the petitioners. In view of the admitted position of the State respondents that they shall initiate the land acquisition process to compensate the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State themselves had admitted that they have not followed due process of law in dispossessing the petitioners. The photographs annexed with the writ petition and not denied by the respondent authorities clearly shows the highhanded and inhuman action of the respondent authorities in evicting the petitioners from dwelling houses by demolishing the same. 14. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact and law that the State is having their right to acquire the private land of the petitioners for public purpose and in the case in hand for expansion of the helipad. But the same needs to be done by following due process of law and such due process are mandated by the legislature. 15. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are entitled for land acquisition compensation under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as Act, 2013). Such contention has been refuted by the learned counsel representing the State on the ground that the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, (in short Regulation, 1947) is applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Arunachal Pradesh is acquiring land on the basis of such land Regulation, 1947. 16. Sub-Section 2 of Section 1 of the Act, 2013 declares that the Act, 2013 extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the same came into force on 01.01.2014, when the Central Government notified the Act, 2013 in official Gazette as per Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act, 2013. Thus it is clear that the said Act, 2013 has been made applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2014. 17. Thus it is clear that the said Act, 2013 has been made applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2014. 17. Section 107 of the Act, 2013 provides that nothing in the Act 2013 shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under the Act 2013, which confers higher compensation than payable under Act 2013 or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under the Act, 2013. 18. Section 108 of the Act, 2013 provides that: (i) where a State law or a policy framed by the Government of a State provides for a higher compensation than calculated under the Act 2013, for the acquisition of land, the affected persons or his family or member of his family may at their option can avail such higher compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement under such State law or such policy of the State. (ii) Where a State law or a policy framed by the Government of a State offers more beneficial rehabilitation and resettlement provisions under that Act 2013 or policy than under the Act 2013, the affected persons or his family or member of his family may at his option can avail such rehabilitation and resettlement provisions under such State law or such policy of the State instead of under this Act 2013. 19. Therefore, it is clear that State is competent to enact law relating to land acquisition but the same cannot be less beneficial in terms of the compensation and rehabilitation than Act, 2013. It is also clear that the affected party shall have an option to go for better compensation and rehabilitation, if State policy is more benefit that Act, 2013. Thus, the prime concern is grant of benefit more to the person affected by land acquisition. 20. Even if assuming that the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 is followed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, then also for grant of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, the petitioners from whom the land are acquired, shall be entitled for more beneficial compensations available under the Act, 2013. 21. 20. Even if assuming that the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 is followed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, then also for grant of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, the petitioners from whom the land are acquired, shall be entitled for more beneficial compensations available under the Act, 2013. 21. Therefore, while giving the liberty to the State to acquire the land, this Court treats the present Case as a deemed acquisition and accordingly, directs the acquiring authority and the State to pay the compensation as per Act, 2013 which is more beneficial than Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, including all other benefits as mandated in the Act, 2013 within a period of 6(Six) months from today in terms of the foregoing discussions and reasons. 22. Over and above, the State respondent shall compensate the present petitioners by paying Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only each for the highhanded and inhuman action in forceful eviction of the petitioners from their dwelling houses and for non adherence of the due process of law. 23. With the forgoing discussions, reasons and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no order as to cost.