JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12 & 13 and Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for State respondent Nos. 1 to 9 . 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Shri Doi Ado and six others have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of land compensation and assets as per the rates fixed by notification, dated 12.02.2015, and 16.05.2012 annexed with the petition as Annexure-3 (a) & 4, as per the Govt. approved rate of 2012 and 2015 fixed by the respondents and also to direct the respondent authorities to pay the land compensation together with 100% solatium to the petitioners and also to pay 12% interest per annum with effect from 2013. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioners are inhabitant of Aalo Town of West Siang District. Their land have been acquired by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, by issuing a notification as per provision of Section 10 of Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 for construction of existing road to 2 lane National Highway, with realignment starting from Potin to Pangin via Yachuli, Ziro, Daporijo, Aalo under Ar.Pkg of roads and highway and NH 229 BOT (Annuity) Tai-Dapo boundary 298.660 Km to 392.40 Km towards Garu Stream in West Siang District on existing BRO road from Tai via Bame to Garu Stream in the year, 2014. Pursuant to the acquisition of land, there was claim and objection of the land affected people and the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, after hearing claim and objection, started assessment in a haphazard manner without making proper assessment of the properties of the petitioners and prepared bills for compensation not at par with the present market value and fixed the rate at Rs.11/-per sq. mtrs., for the land as per the rate fixed in the year, 2011, instead the rate was fixed in 2012 and 2015, which is contrary to Section 3 (3) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. mtrs., for the land as per the rate fixed in the year, 2011, instead the rate was fixed in 2012 and 2015, which is contrary to Section 3 (3) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Besides, the Deputy Commissioner had failed to pay 100% solatium (lump sum) amount in addition to the compensation payable to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, with aforementioned prayer, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.” 4. The respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. Respondent Nos. 11, 12 & 13 in their affidavit stated that they have no role to play in payment of the compensation to the petitioners as the same was acquired by the State Government and payment was also made by them. 5. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had published notification, vide No. LR/43/81 (Vol-II) Pt., dated 12.02.2015, wherein, the Government has notified the rates of various categories of land and assets for the purpose of payment of compensation for the land acquired for construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway Project and that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has issued notification No.LM/20/2005(Pt.)/1546, dated 20.03.2014, whereby, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force w.e.f. 1.01.2014, then the land of the petitioners were acquired in a different manner determining the rate of compensation as per Govt. Notification, dated 26.11.2011 and there was no direction from the Government for preparation of their bills as per notification dated 16.05.2012, or as per the corrigendum, dated 03.07.2012. The land was acquired under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Act of Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, and there is no provision for payments of solatium etc. and the petitioners have made no objection while the bills were prepared. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. But, in his affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners have controverted the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. 7. Mr. and the petitioners have made no objection while the bills were prepared. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. But, in his affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners have controverted the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. 7. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court very recently had disposed of one writ petition being WP (C) 280 (AP) 2020 (Mihin Laling -vs- State of Arunachal Pradesh and 7 Others) and in two connected writ petitions, vide judgment and order, dated 25.04.2022, on similar subject matter and the said judgment has covered the case of present petitioners also, and therefore, Mr. Son, contended to grant similar relief to the present petitioners, like the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions. 8. On the other hand, Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC submits that the respondent Nos. 11, 12 & 13 have no role to play and as such, it is contended to strike out their names from the array of the writ petition. 9. Per contra, Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocates submits that he has no objection in the event of granting same relief to the present petitioners like the petitioners of WP (C) 280 (AP) 2020. 10. It is to be noted here that while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, No. 280 (AP) 2020 (Mihin Laling -vs.- State of Arunahal Pradesh & 7 Others) and two connected writ petitions, this Court has elaborately discussed the issue and recorded the findings as under: “55. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, the finding of this Court is summarized as under:- (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 same is available in the RFCT & LARR Act. The object sought to be achieved by the Regulation, 1947 and the RFCT & LARR Act are almost the same. There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in the Regulation of 1947, whereas same is available in the RFCT & LARR Act. The object sought to be achieved by the Regulation, 1947 and the RFCT & LARR Act are almost the same. And as such Regulation, 1947 is inconsistent with the RFCTLARR 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 Trans Arunachal Highway and for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-station and Bomdila Bye-Pass, all are acquired for the public purpose and no classification for public purpose is permissible; (iii) Regulation of 1947, and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, enable 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 differntia, 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’; and (iv) The petitioners are entitled to compensation and solatium and interest in view of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as the State cannot make any law in derogation of any provision of the said Act. “56. Under the Above facts and circumstances, I find sufficient merit in these petitions and accordingly, the same are allowed. Admittedly, the State respondents have already paid compensation to the petitioners herein, under the Regulation 1947. In addition to the said compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest. By a mandamus of this Court, the State respondents are directed to work out and make payment of solatium and interest to the petitioners, as provided in the RFCT & LARR Act, 2013 and under the notifications, presently holding the field. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent authorities. On receipt of the certified copy the respondent authorities shall carry out above exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy.” 11. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent authorities. On receipt of the certified copy the respondent authorities shall carry out above exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy.” 11. In view of the already settled position of the matter, and also as agreed by the parties, this Court is inclined to grant similar reliefs to the petitioners like the petitioners of WP (C) 280 (AP) 2020 in paragraph 55 and 56 of the judgment and order, dated 25.04.2022. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to grant similar relief to the present petitioners, like the relief granted to the petitioners of WP (C) 280 (AP) 2020, in paragraph 55 and 56 of the judgment and order, dated 25.04.2022. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a week from today. And within a period of three months of receipt of the same, the respondent authority shall carry out the above exercise. 12. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.