Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1886 (GAU)

Padi Grayu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2025-11-19

MITALI THAKURIA

body2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. D. Laji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Highway for the respondent No.4 as well as Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent No.5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for payment of Solatium @ 100% of the compensation paid to the petitioner for the land that have been acquired by the respondent authorities from him under Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (the Jhum Regulation, of 1947, in short) and accordingly, prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for payment of Solatium amount to the petitioner @ 100% of the compensation amount. 3. It is submitted by Mr. D. Laji, learned counsel that the land of the this petitioner was acquired for construction of existing road to 2 lane NH standards along with improvement and re-alignment starting from Potin to Godak (part of Trans Arunachal Highway). The land of the petitioner was accordingly acquisitioned as per Government Notification No. LM-14/2014 dated 17.02.2014. Accordingly, the compensation amount has already been disbursed, which was accepted by the petitioner, but, he was not provided with the Solatium for the land and properties acquired by the respondents. 4. Mr. Laji, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Government of Arunachal Pradesh Notification No. LM.20/2005 (Pt) 1546 dated 20.03.2014 through the Secretary-cum-Revenue Commissioner, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar for extension of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in Arunachal Pradesh. Since, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been extended to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner is entitled to get payment of Solatium as provided under Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. Further, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway has also issued a guideline vide No.NH-11011/30/2015-LA dated 28.12.2017 regarding the payment of compensation and Solatium and as per the guideline for payment of Solatium @ 100% of the compensation amount in addition to compensation has been illustrated and method of calculation of the Solatium also illustrated in the said guideline. 5. Further, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway has also issued a guideline vide No.NH-11011/30/2015-LA dated 28.12.2017 regarding the payment of compensation and Solatium and as per the guideline for payment of Solatium @ 100% of the compensation amount in addition to compensation has been illustrated and method of calculation of the Solatium also illustrated in the said guideline. But, in the instant case, the substantial right provided under Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been violated by not paying the Solatium to the petitioner as entitled under the law and for which the present writ petition had to be instituted by the petitioner seeking a direction for payment of Solatium to the respondent authorities. 6. Mr. Laji, learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 11884-11888/2025 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.9585-9589/2023 (State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr., Vs. Mihin Laling & Ors .,) has observed in paragraph 28 of the judgment that even after the acceptance or disbursement of the compensation amount, the petitioner is protected and the compensation can be recomputed to include Solatium and interest. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment read as under:-- “ 28. In respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above.” 7. He also put emphasized on paras 25 and 26 of the said judgment, which also read as under:-- “ 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct that the respondents shall also be entitled to solatium as well as interest in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 26. The appellants shall ensure that any arrears towards solatium and interest, wherever not yet paid, are released to the landowners of the subject-acquisition within a period of three months from today.” 8. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Laji, learned counsel that the petitioner is entitled to 100% Solatium even after the closure of the acquisition proceeding or the disbursement or acceptance of the compensation amount. 9. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the respondent Nos. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Laji, learned counsel that the petitioner is entitled to 100% Solatium even after the closure of the acquisition proceeding or the disbursement or acceptance of the compensation amount. 9. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that the case of the present petitioner does not cover by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mihin Laling (supra) as relied by the petitioner. 10. He further submitted that this is a case of concluded acquisition process, wherein, compensation has already been disbursed and accepted by the petitioner before filing the present writ petition. He further, submitted that at the time of disbursement of the compensation amount, the petitioner never raised the issue of payment of Solatium and the compensation amount was accordingly, accepted by the petitioner. More so, from the Notices annexed along with the present petition, it also reveals that the petitioner has issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner seeking Solatium @100% of the compensation amount only after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (supra) and prior to that there was no prayer for Solatium by the petitioner. 11. Mr. Ratan, learned Addl. A.G. further submitted that in the case of Mihin Laling (supra) in para 23 of the said judgment, it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the reopening of the concluded acquisition under the 1947 Regulation is not permissible. Para 23 of the said judgment read as under:- “23. At the same time, we are conscious of the limits of judicial intervention. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, permitted reopening of all concluded acquisitions under the 1947 Regulations for reassessment of compensation. Such an approach, in our considered opinion, may travel beyond the permissible bounds. Finality of administrative action cannot be lightly unsettled; to do so would not only destabilise public projects but also create fiscal uncertainty. Balance must therefore be struck by ensuring that pending and future acquisitions are aligned with the standards of the 2013 Act, while leaving untouched those transactions where compensation has been finally determined and accepted.” 12. Further, Mr. Finality of administrative action cannot be lightly unsettled; to do so would not only destabilise public projects but also create fiscal uncertainty. Balance must therefore be struck by ensuring that pending and future acquisitions are aligned with the standards of the 2013 Act, while leaving untouched those transactions where compensation has been finally determined and accepted.” 12. Further, Mr. Ratan submitted that in para-28 of the said judgment it is clearly observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in respect of concluded acquisition, where, the compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. He further submitted that the interpretation of the subsequent line of the said para is only for the case which are still pending before any competent authority or Court to consider the Solatium on the compensation amount, but it is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases, where acquisition proceeding is concluded, there cannot be any question of reopening for reassessment of the compensation. 13. Mr. Ratan accordingly submitted that the present petitioner, who has already accepted the compensation amount after conclusion of the entire acquisition process, not entitle for any 100% Solatium as prayed for in the present petition and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. 14. Further, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the Highway for the respondent No.4 as well as Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent No.5 also made the same submission and it is submitted that after the conclusion of the acquisition process, the petitioner is not at all entitled for any payment of @100% Solatium as prayed for and they accordingly submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. So from the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that the petitioner has already received the compensation for his acquired land and it is also not disputed that the compensation has already been disbursed and accepted by the petitioner. 16. The present writ petition has been filed only claiming the payment of Solatium @ 100% of the compensation already paid to the petitioner for his land which have been acquired by the respondent authorities from him under Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (the Jhum Regulation, of 1947, in short) and accordingly, prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for payment of the same. 17. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner basically made his submission on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mihin Laling (supra) stating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had interpreted in the said judgment that Solatium is entitled by the persons even after concluding the acquisition proceeding. 18. There appears to be some confusion in interpreting the Supreme Court’s judgment, which gave rise to this litigation. As such, before proceeding further the rule of interpretation is felt to be discussed. The rule of interpretation of statues plays a crucial role in ensuring the effective and consistent application of law. There are literal rule, Mischief rule, Golden rule and as well as Harmonious Rule amongst other for the purpose of interpretation. In legal parlance, it refers to the art of finding out the true meaning of an enactment made by a legislative body or understanding the intention of the legislature. In simple words the correct understanding of the law. 19. In the above backdrop, the discussion of the Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (supra) has to be understood. 20. The case of Mihin Laling (supra) went to the Supreme Court for dispute of compensation between the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation 1947 (for short 1947 Regulation) and the successive statute i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act, 2013). 21. In that case before the Supreme Court acquisition was done on 17.02.2014 and compensation was paid as per Regulation 1947. The land owners approached the High Court seeking benefit under the Act, 2013. The High Court allowed the petition to approach the Governor as per Section 17 of Regulation, 1947, which on being assailed was rejected by the Governor. Therefore, the petitioners/land owners again approached the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition for compensation as per Act, 2013. Against that order the State of Arunachal Pradesh preferred appeal. The High Court allowed the petition to approach the Governor as per Section 17 of Regulation, 1947, which on being assailed was rejected by the Governor. Therefore, the petitioners/land owners again approached the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition for compensation as per Act, 2013. Against that order the State of Arunachal Pradesh preferred appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeals and held that the statutory benefits of the respondent (land owners) flows from the Act, 2013 and also held that all acquisitions completed under the Regulation, 1947 may be reopened for redetermination of their compensation as per the Act, 1984 (i.e., the Act which was prevalent in other parts of India when Regulation, 1947 was applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh) or the Act, 2013 as the case may be. 22. Being aggrieved, by the order of the Division Bench of this High Court, the State of A.P. approached the Supreme Court with SLP. The Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Act, 1984/2013 as well as Regulation, 1947 and in para 23 of the judgment impugned the order of the High Court so far allowing compensation to the respondents (landlords) but in para 24 interpreted with the later part i.e., reopening of all the concluded acquisitions under the Regulation 1947 and has shown the reasons thereof. 23. The Supreme Court also mentioned about amended Regulation 1947 i.e., Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2024 which came into effect from 07.08.2024, which amends Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947, which stipulates that the compensation shall not be less then that computed under the law of land acquisition in force at the relevant time. The Supreme Court observed that “however, as a matter of legislative policy, it operates prospectively and cannot, by itself, justify disturbed concluded acquisitions. Finally in para 28, the Supreme Court orders as follows:-- “ 28. In respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above.” 24. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above.” 24. Be it be clear that the discussion is that whether compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. Pending matters either before the competent authority/Court/Tribunal, the compensation to include Solatium and interest. 25. The discussion is clear that matter already settled not permitted to be reopened. 26. In this instant case, the acquisition and compensation matter of the petitioner was finally settled and not pending before any authority. Being so, interpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in a different way and reopening a closed matter is an abuse of the judicial process. 27. This writ petition being devoid of merit and abuse of judicial process is hereby dismissed.