JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General (In-Charge) assisted by Mr. S. Tapin, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1, Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. M. Kato, learned ASGI, representing the respondent no. 4. 2. By filing this writ petition as a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sole petitioner herein is praying for setting aside and quashing of the impugned notification no. LN-62/2011 (Pt.) dated 26.11.2011, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette on 09.01.2012, by which the government had notified the rates for various categories of land and assets for the purpose of payment of compensation for land acquired for the highway project in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner has also assailed the notification under Memo No. LN-77/2014 dated 16.04.2016, issued by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby in pursuance of the cabinet decision dated 20.03.2016, under agenda item no. 01, the Government had notified certain procedures to facilitate the ongoing various road projects in the State by also providing therein that the compensation rates notified on 26.11.2011 shall be applicable for assessment of compensation for Trans-Arunachal Highway and all districts connectivity roads under Special Accelerated Road Development Programme-NE (SARDP-NE), executed by various agencies. Moreover, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondent no.2 “to issue a fresh notification under the LARRA for any fresh Acquisition in the Court” (sic.). 3. At the outset, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate had questioned the maintainability of this PIL on the ground that the present petitioner had made a categorical statement in the PIL to the effect that the petitioner had no personal interest in the present litigation and that the petition was not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than that of public interest in filing the writ petition. Similar statement is reiterated in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of this PIL. The learned Senior Govt. advocate had submitted that the said statement was a false statement on oath because the petitioner herein was also one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017. Similar statement is reiterated in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of this PIL. The learned Senior Govt. advocate had submitted that the said statement was a false statement on oath because the petitioner herein was also one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017. In this regard, reliance has been placed on page 35 of the said WP(C) 361(AP)/2017 to demonstrate that the land of petitioner was acquired and that his name appeared at serial no. 181 as one of the beneficiaries. The said writ petition was filed on 19.06.2017 and notice of motion was issued by order dated 21.06.2017. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that as per order dated 28.10.2021, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate had raised the point that the petitioner in this PIL had filed WPC 361(AP)/2017, wherein the substantive prayer was similar to the prayers made in this PIL. Therefore, vide order dated 28.10.2021, the said writ petition was tagged along with this PIL. Thereafter, on the prayer made by the petitioner, he was granted liberty to move the Single Bench of this Court for making a prayer to strike out the name of the petitioner and accordingly, the records of WP(C) 361(AP)/2017 was de-tagged from the present PIL. Subsequently, on a prayer made by the petitioner, by order dated 20.01.2022, his name was struck off from the said writ petition. 4. Opposing the submission of learned Senior Govt. Advocate in respect of maintainability of the present PIL, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after his name was struck-off as one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having any surviving interest in any writ petition pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner had no personal interest in this PIL. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Schedule-I of the Government notification dated 26.11.2011, the rates of acquisition was determined on the basis of category of land, which is as follows, viz., (i) Jhum/Horti/Pvt. plantation land/ Fallow land/Unused land-Rs.45,000/-per acre; Rs.11.00 per square metre, (ii) WRC-Rainfed-Rs.2,00,000/-per acre; Rs.49.00 per square metre, (iii) WRC-Irrigated-Rs.2,50,000/- per acre; Rs.68.00 per square metre, (iv) Homestead/ Residential-Rs.3,00,000/- per acre; Rs.74.00 per square metre, (v) Business/ Commercial-Rs.3,00,000/-per acre; Rs.86.00 per square metre, and (vi) Govt. Land/ PSU’s Rs.NIL/-per acre; Rs.NIL per square metre. Land/ PSU’s Rs.NIL/-per acre; Rs.NIL per square metre. Moreover, it was submitted that in Schedule-II to VI, the rates of various standing structures, private forest plantation, horticulture, agriculture items and miscellaneous items were also fixed. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rates prescribed vide notification dated 26.11.2011 was on the lower side than the prevailing market rate of the land and other assets standing thereon. Thus, it was submitted that the rates as prescribed by the said notification dated 26.11.2011 was outdated. Hence, it was submitted that as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act for short), having been extended to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, an appropriate direction is required to be issued to the respondent authorities that the calculation of land acquisition and compensation must be in accordance with the RFCTLARR Act. 7. It is seen that “Public Interest Litigation” is defined in clause (c) of Rule 3 of Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011, which reads as follows:- “(c) Public Interest Litigation means a written petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instituted pro bona public for enforcement of public interest or general interest as distinguished from individual interest, in which the public or a class or a community have some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected and also includes a legal action initiated by the Court for the purpose aforesaid or a Letter Petition which may be entertain as Public Interest Litigation under these Rules.” 8. Therefore, from the said provisions, it is clear that “public interest” has been distinguished from “individual interest”. Moreover, as per sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of Rule 10 of the Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011, there is a requirement of making a specific averments in para-1 of the writ petition to the effect that the writ petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and that the petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than that of public interest in filing the writ petition. 9. However, on perusal of the records of WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017, the Court has no other option but to agree with the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that the name of the petitioner appears at sl. no. 9. However, on perusal of the records of WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017, the Court has no other option but to agree with the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that the name of the petitioner appears at sl. no. 181 as a beneficiaries of land acquisition in page 35 of the said writ petition. Therefore, if the prayer made in this PIL is allowed, notwithstanding whether or not the name of the petitioner was struck off from the array of petitioners in the said WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017 by order dated 20.01.2022 after the locusstandi of the petitioner was challenged in this PIL as per order dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner would definitely be one of the beneficiaries on enhanced compensation. It may be mentioned herein that it is the case of the petitioner that if compensation is calculated as per the RFCTLARR Act, the persons whose lands are acquired would get higher compensation. Thus, it is apparent that the present petitioner cannot be said to have no personal interest in this litigation. Moreover, if the prayer made in this PIL is allowed, not only the petitioner, but other similarly situated persons whose land are acquired, would stand to gain in form of higher land acquisition compensation. Therefore, the Court is constrained to hold that the statement made in para-1 of this PIL, as reiterated and supported by statement made in para-4 of the affidavit dated 31.07.2021, appended in support of the statements made in this PIL is nothing but a false statement. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate is sustained. Resultantly, this PIL is held to be guided by self-gain and/ or for gain of other persons whose lands have been acquired, who would be the direct beneficiaries. 10. Moreover, in this PIL, there has been a suppression of material fact. In this PIL, the petitioner has not disclosed that he was one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/2017, and that the said writ petition contains prayer similar to the one made in this PIL. Accordingly, as the issues raised in this PIL are directly and substantially in issue in WP(C) 361(AP)/2017, therefore, the present PIL cannot be proceeded with. 11. Nonetheless, on the ground that the present PIL is guided by self-gain, the same is dismissed. 12. Accordingly, as the issues raised in this PIL are directly and substantially in issue in WP(C) 361(AP)/2017, therefore, the present PIL cannot be proceeded with. 11. Nonetheless, on the ground that the present PIL is guided by self-gain, the same is dismissed. 12. As this PIL is found to be guided by self-gain, the Court is inclined to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner, with a direction that such amount shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of 1(one) month from the date of the order, failing which, owing to the undertaking given by the petitioner in para-4 of this PIL, supported by verification on oath made in para-8 of the appended affidavit, the petitioner may be well advised that he may expose himself to the risk of being proceeded with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, apart from steps to be taken in accordance with law for realization of such cost. On deposit of such cost, the Registry of this Court shall transfer the said cost to the State Legal Services Authority, Arunachal Pradesh.