JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Shri Tachu Nabam and 77 others, have prayed for directing the respondent authorities to grant compensation to the people of Khodaso Community, pursuant to notification, dated 11.12.2012, of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for acquisition of their community land for construction of Trans Arunachal Highway from Khodaso to Hoj having a length of 102 kms and also to constitute an independent committee, headed by a person appointed by this Court along with the representative of Khodaso community for assessment and disbursement of compensation payable to the said community and also to enquire about the compensation granted to the selected 2 (two) individuals belonging to Khodaso community. 2. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under: “On 16.10.2008, the Ministry of Shipping, Road and Transport & Highways, Department of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, through it’s Director General (RD) & SS, addressed a letter to the Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, regarding alignment of Trans Arunachal Highway. Pursuant to the said letter, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has issued a Notification, No.LM-32/NH/2008, dated 06.02.2009, under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Annexure ‘C’) for acquisition of land for construction of 2 (two) lane National Highway (NH 229) from Khodaso to Hoj, covering a length of 102 kms. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, thereafter, prepared estimate and valued the assets of Khodaso community and prepared estimate for widening of the existing road to a 2 (two) lane National Highway at the cost of Rs. 71,13,56,583/-(Rupees seventy one crore thirteen lakhs fifty six thousand five hundred eighty three) only. The aforesaid compensation for acquisition of land for the National Highway was to be determined in accordance with notification No. LM-134/2011 (Pt.), dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. But, while assessing the value of the assets of Khodaso community, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily, without adhering to the norms/rules regarding the assessment and disbursement of compensation to be given to the families of the Khodaso community, have granted compensation only to 2 (two) individuals. But, while assessing the value of the assets of Khodaso community, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily, without adhering to the norms/rules regarding the assessment and disbursement of compensation to be given to the families of the Khodaso community, have granted compensation only to 2 (two) individuals. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have some differences with the people of Raik community and therefore a committee was formed to protect their interests and resolved the dispute and consequently a joint resolution was adopted wherein it was agreed that the compensation for the Chainage from 3800-7200 of the Trans Arunachal Highway, would be given to the people of Khodaso community, and the total compensation payable to the Khodaso community for the acquisition of their community land is valued at Rs. 71,48,690.25/-(Rupees seventy one lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred ninety and twenty five paise) only. But, the respondent authorities arbitrarily granted the compensation in favour of 2 (two) selected individual belonging to Khodaso community and the petitioners are deprived of getting the compensation for the community land belonging to them which was acquisitioned by the respondent authorities for construction of 2 (two) lane Highway and their fundamental right guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated and therefore, they have approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 3. The respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 stated that payments of compensation of Khodaso community does not arise at all as the said village does not fall under the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 and that no assessment was done and the properties of the petitioners’ village falls in the jurisdiction of separate Deputy Commissioner, i.e. East Kameng District, and again it is stated that the community land, as described by the petitioners, falls under the jurisdiction of Papum Pare District Administration and therefore, 2 (two) individuals, namely, Shri Taring Nabam and Gunia Nabam, have been disbursed and finalized on the basis of their minutes of meeting. It is also stated that disbursement of compensation of the community land was done purely on representation submitted by villagers of Raik, Hote and Rachi falling under the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 4. It is also stated that disbursement of compensation of the community land was done purely on representation submitted by villagers of Raik, Hote and Rachi falling under the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 4. It is also to be mentioned here that an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, as per direction of this Court, on 18.09.2018, stating therein that the Khodaso-Raik stretch segment is 18 km out of which Ch: 3.790 to Ch: 18000 falls under Deputy Commissioner, Papu Pare District and Ch: 0.000 to Ch: 3790 falls under Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District, and there was dispute regarding payment of compensation from Ch: 3.790 to Ch: 16.222 amongst the villagers of Khodaso village, Raik village, Rachi village and Hote village. It is also stated that the terrain from Ch: 3790 to Ch: 16222 was inaccessible with lots of wild animal and poisonous snake and it was a community land and as per declaration of the 4 (four) villages the compensation was not prepared against any individual’s name. But, the same was assessed jointly in presence of all the affected villagers, and later on, the compensation amount was divided as per their mutual joint decision and settlement by the district administration and an amount of Rs. 3,23,91,001/-(Rupees three crore twenty three lakhs ninety one thousand one) only was distributed amongst the people of 4 (four) villages, who have submitted their representation to disburse the amount among the listed people of above 4 (four) villages and the same was done in presence of concerned Circle Officer and Executive Magistrate. It is also stated that for the Khodaso village, the compensation, amounting to Rs. 40,24,000/-(Rupees forty lakhs twenty four thousand) only, for the disputed portion of Ch: 3790 to Ch: 16222, was disbursed to Nabam Taring and Nabam Gunia based on the minutes of the meeting of the villagers held on 06.07.2013, as per Annexure-‘B’, though the date is mentioned in the affidavit as 06.06.2013, and submitted to the respondent No.4, and their names were figured at Sl. No. 56 and 59 of the list, Annexure-‘B’, enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition, and Shri Nabam Taring and Nabam Gunia submitted a list of 53 beneficiaries to the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District. No. 56 and 59 of the list, Annexure-‘B’, enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition, and Shri Nabam Taring and Nabam Gunia submitted a list of 53 beneficiaries to the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District. It is also stated that in the list of beneficiaries, name of the petitioner, Shri Tachu Nabam, is appearing at Sl. No. 47, who has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) and four other petitioners namely-Ada Nabam, Bida Neurang, Ram Techi Tara and Ranku Techi had also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/, Rs. 2000/, Rs. 50,000/ and Rs.10,000/ respectively, and the rate of compensation @ Rs. 2000/ per running meter, was determined as per minutes of the joint meeting of the villagers submitted to the respondent No.4, and having accepted the amount now they cannot turnaround and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. It is also to be noted here that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Kameng District, Seppa, is also impleaded as respondent No. 6 and he also submitted one affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, it is stated that his office has not carried out any assessment and made no compensation payment and the entire process of land acquisition and payment was carried out by the Papum Pare District Administration. 6. The petitioners also submitted their affidavit-in-reply disputing the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. But, they have not filed any reply to the additional affidavit submitted by the petitioner on 18th September, 2018. 7. I have heard Mr. A. Kasyap, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC representing respondent No. 1; Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6; and Ms. H. Jeram, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 8. Mr. A. Kasyap, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are belonging to Khodaso community and they are living in Khodaso village and their community land is acquired for the purpose of widening of the Trans Arunachal Highway. Mr. Kasyap further submits that the assessment of compensation was required to be done as per notification, dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. But, while assessing the compensation of the community land belonging to Khodaso community, the Government has not adhered to the norms laid down in the said notification. Kasyap further submits that the assessment of compensation was required to be done as per notification, dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. But, while assessing the compensation of the community land belonging to Khodaso community, the Government has not adhered to the norms laid down in the said notification. He further submits that the assessment was carried out by the District Administration of Papum Pare District though the same falls under the jurisdiction of District Administration of East Kameng District and the District Administration, in collusion with 2 (two) persons of Khodaso community, has disbursed the entire amount to them and as such, the people of Khodaso community are deprived of getting their compensation. Mr. Kasyap, therefore, contended to allow this petition by directing the respondent authorities to grant compensation to the people of Khodaso community in accordance with the notification, dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and to constitute a committee to enquire about the assessment and disbursement of compensation payable to the Khodaso community by the District Administration to the selected individuals belonging to Khodaso community. Mr. Kasyap also referred one case law, i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki & Ors. [ (2014) 3 SCC 183 ], to contend that when the power is given to do a certain things in a certain way, other method of performance of such act is not permissible. 9. On the other hand, Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6, vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the compensation was disbursed to Nabam Taring and Nabam Gunia based on the basis of minutes of the meeting of the villagers held on 06.07.2013, and the same was submitted to the respondent No.4, and that their names find mentioned at Sl. No. 56 and 59, of Annexure-III, and Shri Nabam Taring and Nabam Gunia submitted a list of 53 beneficiaries to the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District. Ms. Ete further submitted that in the list of beneficiaries, the names of the petitioner, Shri Tachu Nabam, also appearing at Sl. No. 47, who has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only and four other petitioners namely-Ada Nabam, Bida Neurang, Ram Techi Tara and Ranku Techi had also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/, Rs. 2000/, Rs. Ms. Ete further submitted that in the list of beneficiaries, the names of the petitioner, Shri Tachu Nabam, also appearing at Sl. No. 47, who has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only and four other petitioners namely-Ada Nabam, Bida Neurang, Ram Techi Tara and Ranku Techi had also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/, Rs. 2000/, Rs. 50,000/ and Rs.10,000/ respectively. Ms. Ete also submits that the rate of compensation @ Rs. 2000/-per running meter was determined as per minutes of the joint meeting of the villagers submitted to the respondent No.4, and having accepted the amount, the petitioner No. 1 and other four petitioners, who have received the amount, now cannot turnaround and therefore, Ms. Ete contended to dismiss the petition. 10. On the other hand, Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC representing respondent No. 1, questioned about the maintainability of the petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as the 2 (two) persons who have received the compensation amount on behalf of the petitioners have not been made a party here in this petition. Mr. Ratan, further submits that alternative remedy is provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and that without exhausting the same they have approached this Court directly and as such Mr. Ratan submits that on the twin ground, stated above, this petition is not maintainable, and therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 11. Per contra, Ms. H. Jeram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, submits that the respondent No. 5 has no role to play in payment of compensation to the petitioners and his role has already been completed. 12. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. A. Kasyap, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have not received the compensation for acquiring their community land and that is their only grievance and they have no complaint against the 2 (two) gentlemen to whom the authorities have disbursed the amount. 13. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and in the affidavit-in-reply submitted by the respondents and the petitioners, respectively. 14. 13. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and in the affidavit-in-reply submitted by the respondents and the petitioners, respectively. 14. The undisputed fact is that the community land of the petitioners, who are belonging to Khodaso community and living in Khodaso village, was acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of Trans Arunachal Highway pursuant to the letter No. NH-12037/7/2008/Ar.P/SARDP-NE, dated 16.10.2008, issued by the Director General (RD) & SS, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Department of Road Transport & Highways. Thereafter, preliminary notification No. LM-32/NH/2008, dated 06.02.2009, was issued by the Commissioner, Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, another notification, No. LM-134/2011(Pt), dated 10.12.2011, has been issued declaring the procedure to be followed for land acquisition, as prescribed under the Land Acquisitioned Act, 1894, for calculation of compensation. 15. But, it appears from the averments made in paragraph No.10 of the petition and Annexure-I, that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had prepared estimate and valued the assets of Khodaso community at Rs. 71,48,690.25/-(Rupees seventy one lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred ninety point twenty paisa) only. The aforesaid amount of compensation for acquisition of land for the National Highway, ought to have been determined in accordance with the notification dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. A. Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioners, had rightly pointed out during argument that while assessing the compensation for the stretch of 2 km of the land, belonging to the Khodosa Community, the respondent authority had not followed the notification No. LM-134/2011(Pt), dated 10.12.2011. Instead, the respondent authority has assessed the compensation on the basis of joint resolution, dated 6th July 2013, as per Annexure-‘B’, where it is stated that the compensation for the stretch i.e. chainage 3790 to chainage 5790 = 2 km (2000 -meter) is to be made in running meter system for common understanding of the general, and the rate fixation was made by them as Rs.2000/ per running meter of the road, and the compensation was calculated at Rs. 40,12,000/ and after signing of land transfer certificate, the compensation amount was handed over to Shri Gunia Nabam and Shri Sarin Nabam. 16. 40,12,000/ and after signing of land transfer certificate, the compensation amount was handed over to Shri Gunia Nabam and Shri Sarin Nabam. 16. Thus, admittedly, the procedure laid down in accordance with the notification dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has not been followed by the respondent authorities while assessing the compensation amount of the land belonging to the Khodaso community. It is the mandate of law that when a particular procedure is prescribed to be followed for doing a particular work in a particular way the thing must be done in that way. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In para No. 18 of the said case it has been held that:- “18. 1894 Act, being an expropriatory legislation, has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Section 31-34) of the Act 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled proposition of law (Classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmed [ AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” 17. Thus, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. A. Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioner and I record concurrence to the same. The assessment of compensation for the stretch of 2 km of land belonging to the Khodosa Community as per the joint resolution dated 6th July 2013, as per Annexure-‘B’, to the considered opinion of this Court, is contrary to the procedure prescribed in notification dated 11.12.2012, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and the same is forbidden by law. 18. But, it is to be noted here that the respondent No.4, while assessing the compensation and preparing the bill @ Rs. 2000/-per running meter, and making payment to Shri Nabam Gunia and Shri Nabam Tarin, based upon the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the villagers, dated 06.07.2013, which is annexed with the additional affidavit of the respondent No.4 as Annexure-‘B’. 2000/-per running meter, and making payment to Shri Nabam Gunia and Shri Nabam Tarin, based upon the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the villagers, dated 06.07.2013, which is annexed with the additional affidavit of the respondent No.4 as Annexure-‘B’. The respondent No.4 had assessed the land compensation on the basis of minutes of the joint meeting of the villagers held on 06.07.2013 submitted to him by the villagers along with petitioner No. 1 and disbursed the compensation amount to Nabam Gunia and Nabam Tarin. Further, it appears that Shri Nabam Gunia and Shri Nabam Tarin have distributed the same amongst 53 villagers and furnished the list to the respondent No.4, which is annexed with the additional affidavit as Annexure-E. The name of the petitioner No. 1 had figured at Sl. No. 47 and four other petitioners also received the compensation. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners. Now, it is to be seen whether some of the petitioners, having received the compensation amount, can agitate and maintain this petition. 19. As stated earlier, Ms. Ete, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner having submitted the minutes of joint meeting of the villagers to the respondent No.4, and based upon which respondent No.4 had acted upon and disbursed the amount, and having received the compensation amount without any protest now they cannot turned around to contend that the process of assessment is contrary to the law. The contention of Ms. Ete is not seriously disputed by the petitioners and as indicated herein above, the assertion made in the additional affidavit by respondent No.4 is also remain uncontroverted. And I find substance in the submission of Ms. Ete, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 20. This being the factual position, the five petitioners who have received compensations, now cannot turnaround and maintain this petition in view of Doctrine of Estoppel, as defined in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. And I find substance in the submission of Ms. Ete, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 20. This being the factual position, the five petitioners who have received compensations, now cannot turnaround and maintain this petition in view of Doctrine of Estoppel, as defined in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is worth mentioning here in this context that section 115 of the Evidence Act provides that -“ When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person, to deny the truth of that thing.” 21. Thus, the petitioner No. 1 and the other four petitioners, who have received the compensation, now cannot be allowed to contend that the procedure adopted by respondent No.4 is wrong and they are prevented from making such a contention by Doctrine of Estoppel. 22. It is also to be noted here that the two individuals namely -Shri Nabam Gunia and Nabam Tarin, who have received the compensation, have not been made a party here in this writ petition. Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC, has rightly pointed this out during his argument. In the given factual scenario, I find that the said two individuals, having received the award have not distributed the same evenly amongst the villagers. This fact is apparent from the list of beneficiaries, which is annexed with the additional affidavit as Annexure-E. There is allegation against the said two persons and a prayer is also being made by the petitioners for constitution of a committee to enquire about the irregularities. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that said two persons are necessary party and their non-impleadment caused dent to the case of the petitioners. Thus, on twin ground, i.e. Doctrine of Estoppel and in view of non-impleadment of necessary parties, this writ petition is found to be not maintainable. 23. In the result I find no merit in this petition. And accordingly the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost.