Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 212 (GAU)

Tenken Nada S/o Bomten Nada v. Union of India

2025-02-07

KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, partly physically and partly through video conferencing mode, assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on call for respondent nos.1 and 5. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3; and Ms. R. Basar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7. 2. This intra Court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 674(AP)/2017. The appellants were the petitioners in the said writ petition. Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants: 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the voluminous documents appended to the memo of appeal as well as on the affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and has advanced extensive submissions on behalf of the appellants. 4. It was submitted that a large volume of land is under submergence zone for construction of the Subansiri Hydro Power Project (SHPP for short), which is undertaken by the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC for short). The appellants are the project affected families (PAFs for short) of Dibe village. It was submitted that two persons from Dibe village of the appellants were awarded compensation as PAFs, but no compensation was assessed and/or awarded for any of the 32 (thirty two) appellants herein. 5. It was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had constituted a Board consisting of (i) the EAC-cum-Nodal Officer (respondent no.7), (ii) HDO, Likabali/Gensi, (iii) ADO, Gensi, (iv) RFO, Gensi, (v) one representative from NHPC, and (vi) Mr. Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo. The said Board had made field enquiry and found that the land of the appellants fell within the submergence zone. Thereafter, the authorities assessed the compensation payable to the appellants. It was submitted that not only the NHPC authorities had refused to participate in the re-assessment process undertaken by the said Board, but also rejected the recommended a sum of Rs.79,87,44,640/- as compensation for the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants have filed the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) 674(AP)/2017. 6. Thereafter, the authorities assessed the compensation payable to the appellants. It was submitted that not only the NHPC authorities had refused to participate in the re-assessment process undertaken by the said Board, but also rejected the recommended a sum of Rs.79,87,44,640/- as compensation for the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants have filed the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) 674(AP)/2017. 6. It was submitted that the judgment in the appeal has been assailed, amongst others, on the ground that the learned Single Judge had held that the Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014, prepared by the Board wherein 615 Ha (Hectare) land had been identified as land of Dibe village that was falling under the submergence area and had lacked technical expertise. 7. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants were summarized as under:- a. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, having not participated in the re-assessment process and having not questioned the said Loss Assessment Report, it was not open to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to refuse payment of compensation to the projected affected families i.e. the appellants. b. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are silent as to whether or not any compensation or part thereof was paid in respect of land of Dibe village, which fell within the submergence zone. If any compensation was paid for land of Dibe Village, to whom the amount was paid. Moreover, if compensation was paid in respect of the appellants to some other person or persons, then the State should pay compensation to the appellants and recover the money from those who have been unjustly enriched. c. If this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Loss Assessment Report was not by an expert committee, the correct recourse would be to appoint another committee by constituting it of experts in the field. 8. In support of above, it was elaborated that two persons from the appellants’ village were paid compensation, but the respondent nos.2 and 3 do not say why land of two persons of the village would be submerged and land of others in the village would not be submerged. Moreover, it is submitted that even in the initial report submitted by one Wapcos Centre for Environment, which is a Govt. Moreover, it is submitted that even in the initial report submitted by one Wapcos Centre for Environment, which is a Govt. of India undertaking, on which the respondent nos.2 and 3 are banking upon, it has been clearly mentioned that the submergence area would include land of Dibe village. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2013, passed in WP(C) 299(AP)/2013 had taken note of the order dated 04.04.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo on 04.04.2013 and directed the Extra Assistant Commissioner-cum-Nodal Officer (NHPC Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as EAC for short), Gensi to comply with the said order. Therefore, it was submitted that the resultant Loss Assessment Report submitted by the said EAC to the Deputy Commissioner vide forwarding letter dated 10.03.2014, could not have been disregarded by the learned Single Judge. Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3: 9. The learned senior has also meticulously referred to the memo of appeal, including voluminous documents contained therein, as well as affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and had made extensive submissions. Moreover, a written note was also filed on 30.01.2025, containing brief facts, relevant list of dates and documents, which has been made a part of record. 10. While denying the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it was submitted that no homestead land of Dibe Village would fall within submergence area and the said village was safely away from the submergence area. However, two persons of the said village had WRC land within forest area and within the submergence area and therefore, they were given compensation for loss of agriculture only and not for land. 11. It was submitted that the total land required for the SHPP was 4,110.9 Ha., out of (i) 4,039.3 Ha land was forest land, (ii) 31.6 Ha. land was Government land, and (iii) 40.0 Ha. land required rehabilitation and resettlement. It was submitted that the land claimed by the appellants, fall within “Forest land within Forest Range Middle Siang, Arunachal Pradesh”, under which reservoir submergence area was 1,225 Ha. Out of 1,225 Ha. land, out of which 640 Ha. land was forest land and 585 Ha. land was river bed. land required rehabilitation and resettlement. It was submitted that the land claimed by the appellants, fall within “Forest land within Forest Range Middle Siang, Arunachal Pradesh”, under which reservoir submergence area was 1,225 Ha. Out of 1,225 Ha. land, out of which 640 Ha. land was forest land and 585 Ha. land was river bed. However, in the Loss Assessment Report of the Board, constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, which is not acceptable to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the land measuring 615 Ha. is shown to be the Dibe village land. It was submitted that the said calculation was totally false and unacceptable because the authorities of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had obtained necessary forest and environment clearance for 1,225 Ha. land. Moreover, it was submitted that without clearance from the competent authority, no additional forest area and/or any other area could be covered by the submergence zone. Thus, it was submitted that except two villages, namely, Gengi and Siberite, no other village came within the submergence zone and 77 PAFs (Gengi- 38 families and Siberite- 39 families) were already identified. 12. It was submitted that forest clearance for diversion of 3183 Ha. forest land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh was accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India vide letter dated 12.10.2004. The break-up of which is as follows:- a. Banderdewa Forest Division – 620 Ha. i. Panir Reserved Forest. b. Hapoli Forest Division- 980 Ha i. Talle Valley Reserved Forest- 463 Ha ii. Talle WLS- 42.0 Ha., iii. Unclassed Forest- 475 Ha. c. Daporijo Forest Division- 358 Ha. i. Kamala Reserve Forest – 304.4 Ha. ii. Unclassed Forest – 54.0 Ha. d. Along Forest Division - 1,225 Ha. i. Jiadhal PRF – 316.0 Ha. ii. Unclassed Forests – 909.0 Ha e. Total land: 3,183 Ha. (Total forest land is 3183 Ha.) 13. It was submitted that in the meantime, one group of 29 individuals and 10 villages and communities had filed W.P.(C) No. 483(AP)/2011, claiming balance compensation of Rs.32.82 Crore awarded in February, 2008, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014, filed by the said writ petitioners was allowed by directing the respondent no.1 to release balance out of Rs.32.82 Crore i.e. Rs.15.36 Crore in full compliance of the Loss Assessment Report of 2008. However, W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014, filed by the said writ petitioners was allowed by directing the respondent no.1 to release balance out of Rs.32.82 Crore i.e. Rs.15.36 Crore in full compliance of the Loss Assessment Report of 2008. The SLP(C) 6856/2020, filed by the respondent no.2 was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India by affirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 2 had transferred a sum of Rs.27,75,36,359/-, which includes Rs.15.36 crore and interest of Rs.12,38,01,105/- thereon upto 12.05.2022 into the account of the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District. 14. It was also submitted that without any rhyme or reason, at the call made by certain individuals, political persons, etc. apart from the first Loss Assessment Report of February, 2008, three other Loss Assessment Reports were prepared from time to time. Thus, it was submitted that the Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014 was void ab initio and thus, resisted by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 15. Accordingly, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge had meticulously examined all the aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition. 16. Examined the materials available on record and also considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. 17. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 project that there are following four Loss Assessment Reports: a. As per the first report of February, 2008, compensation of Rs.51.29 Crore was recommended for 77 PAFs of Gengi and Siberite villages and Rs.32.82 Crore was recommended for 29 individuals including four persons from Dibe Village (out of which two persons are present petitioner nos. 8 and 17), and 10 villages and clans/ communities. The said compensation amount was fully paid by the respondent no.2. b. A second Loss Assessment Report dated 24.12.2012, was submitted, whereby a sum of Rs.503,40,08,141/- was recommended for 29 individuals (including four beneficiaries of Dibe Village) and 10 village and clans/ communities. The respondent no. 2 has assailed the said Loss Assessment Report by filing W.P.(C) No. 5402/2020 – NHPC Ltd. v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. The said writ petition is stated to be pending for disposal before this Court. c. A third Loss Assessment Report dated 14.06.2013, was submitted, whereby a sum of Rs.20,42,19,370.70 was recommended for the previously mentioned 29 individuals (including four beneficiaries of Dibe Village) and 10 village and clans/ communities. The said writ petition is stated to be pending for disposal before this Court. c. A third Loss Assessment Report dated 14.06.2013, was submitted, whereby a sum of Rs.20,42,19,370.70 was recommended for the previously mentioned 29 individuals (including four beneficiaries of Dibe Village) and 10 village and clans/ communities. The respondent no. 2 has also assailed the said Loss Assessment Report by filing W.P.(C) No. 5402/2020 – NHPC Ltd. v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. The said writ petition is stated to be pending for disposal before this Court. d. A fourth Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014, was submitted, whereby a sum of Rs.79,87,44,640/- was recommended for 32 PAFs of Dibe Village, including petitioner nos. 8 and 17, who were also beneficiaries of Loss Assessment Report of February, 2008. 18. The fourth Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014, came into existence in the following manner:- a. It appears that there is an office order dated 24.12.2012, for recording Joint Verification Survey of the Ringi Dibe Village. b. Thereafter, by a W.T. message dated 31.01.2013, the desire of the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo vide office order dated 24.12.2012, was communicated to the EAC for recording Joint Verification Survey of the Debi Rengi Village which was to be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner’s office. c. This was followed by another order dated 25.02.2013, constituting the following Board Members, i.e. (i) EAC, Gensi; (ii) ADO, Gensi; (iii) HDO, Gensi; (iv) FRO, Gensi, C/o. DFO, Likabali; (v) Sri Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo; and (vi) one representative from the NHPC. The Board was th directed to submit its report by 11 March. d. The EAC-cum- Nodal Officer, a verification report was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo regarding loss assessment of immovable and movable properties, etc. including agriculture, horticulture, forest, medicinal plants/ herbs, etc. The NHPC authorities did not participate in the said verification. e. The Nodal Officer, vide letter dated 02.04.2013, clarified to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo that as per letter dated 18.03.2013, Dibe village area is falling under submergence area and as per records, 3 Ha. land belongs to Dibe village have been compensated to (1) Sri Karkap Nada (0.50 Ha.), (2) Sri Tengi Nada (0.50 Ha.), (3) Sri Dapu Nada (0.50 Ha.), and (4) Dibe Clan (1.50 Ha.). It was further informed that as per report submitted on 26.11.2012, 620 Ha. land belongs to Dibe village have been compensated to (1) Sri Karkap Nada (0.50 Ha.), (2) Sri Tengi Nada (0.50 Ha.), (3) Sri Dapu Nada (0.50 Ha.), and (4) Dibe Clan (1.50 Ha.). It was further informed that as per report submitted on 26.11.2012, 620 Ha. land of Dibe village is falling under submergence and thus, 617 Ha. land has not been compensated. f. There is another order dated 04.04.2013, by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, a team consisting of (i) EAC, Gensi; (ii) ADO, Gensi; (iii) HDO, Gensi; (iv) FRO, Gensi, C/o. DFO, Likabali; (v) Sri Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo was constituted to prepare and submit a draft cost of compensation within a month. By another order dated 08.04.2013, the Board was to consist of (i) EAC, Gensi (as Chairman); (ii) Sri Sengo Dini, ADO, Gensi (Member); (iii) Sri Ram Singh, HDO, Likabali (Member); (iv) Sri Kebin Mara, FRO, Gensi (Member); and (v) Sri Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo, Basar (Member). g. Thereafter, three persons filed W.P.(C) 299(AP)/2013 – Karkek Nada & 2 others v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 2 others before this Court and the learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.08.2013, the EAC-cum- Nodal Officer (NHPC), Gensi was directed to comply with the order dated 04.04.2013 and submit his report to the Deputy Commissioner. 19. It may be mentioned herein that the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had clarified in course of hearing that the EAC-cum- Nodal Officer (NHPC), upon whom direction was issued by order dated 06.08.2013, by this Court in W.P.(C) 299(AP)/2013 – Karkek Nada & 2 others v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & 2 others, is the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Gensi, who is an Executive Officer of the State Government and the said authority is also appointed as the Nodal Officer for NHPC. Thus, the said authority is not an officer of the NHPC. Therefore, from the array of 3 (three) respondents in the said W.P.(C) 299(AP)/2013, it is evident that while the said order dated 06.08.2013, was being passed by this Court, perhaps it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the said order for submission of the Loss Assessment Report was being passed in the absence of NHPC Ltd. 20. The first Loss Assessment Report of February, 2008 remains uncontroverted. The said report was not set aside. The first Loss Assessment Report of February, 2008 remains uncontroverted. The said report was not set aside. As per the said first report, the land which would be submerged under Likabali Division is 1225 Ha (i.e. PRF- 316 Ha. and USF- 909 Ha.), out of which 640 Ha. land was forest land and 585 Ha. land was river bed. Therefore, it is unacceptable that there would be homestead land or agricultural land of Dibe Village measuring 620 Ha., when the forest land for which conversion was allowed was only 640 Ha. and 585 Ha. was river bed. In other words, the petitioners have not made any attempt to show that if 620 Ha. land belonged to Dibe Village, then where is the forest? 21. The petitioners sought to project from the contents of a letter dated 19.03.2008, addressed to the PCCF & Principal Secretary, Forest Department that the Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India vide letter dated 12.10.2004, gave forest clearance to divert 3183 Ha. forest land in Arunachal Pradesh. However, the DFO, Likabali Forest Division, West Siang District vide letter dated 07.12.2007 had clarified that 1225 Ha. land to be submerged under Subansiri Lower Project does not fall under RF, ARF, PRF and VRF, but the said land comes under USF area and it is community and private land of Gengi Siberite and other adjoining villages. The said letter at page 296 of the Memo of Appeal (bearing mark of Annexure-R/19) is incomplete consisting of one page only. However, the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has been able to demonstrate that wrong letter is annexed in the Memo of Appeal. This was demonstrated from the sub-paragraph of paragraph 44 of the affidavit-in- opposition of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed in connection with W.P.(C) No. 674(AP)/2017, where a copy of the letter by the PCCF, addressed to NHPC is annexed and marked as Annexure-R/19. The said document has been brought on record by the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 along rd with the written notes of submission. The contents of the said letter dated 3 April, 2008 is as follows:- No. FOR-34/Cons/2000/Vol-I/Pt./8904 Itanagar dtd. 3 rd April’08. To, The General Manager, NHPC Ltd. Subansiri Lower HE Project, Gerukamukh via Gogamukh, Dist. 2 and 3 along rd with the written notes of submission. The contents of the said letter dated 3 April, 2008 is as follows:- No. FOR-34/Cons/2000/Vol-I/Pt./8904 Itanagar dtd. 3 rd April’08. To, The General Manager, NHPC Ltd. Subansiri Lower HE Project, Gerukamukh via Gogamukh, Dist. Dhemaji- 787035 (Assam) Sub: Diversion of 3183 ha of forest land for construction of Subansiri Lower HE Project clarification of ownership – reg. Ref: Your letter no. NH/SLP/Env/34/1129 dated 19.03.2008. Sir, It is reiterated that the entire 3183 ha of forest land involved in Subansiri Lower HE Project is forest land. In this connection, this office letter no. FOR.10-34/Cons/2000/Vol-II/Pt-/36293-305 dtd. 28.9.07 addressed to the Chief Engineer (Dam), Subansiri Lower HE Project, NHPC Ltd. clarifying the status of the entire 3183 ha of forest land, ownership, traditional rights, etc. may kindly be referred to. Copy of the said letter along with relevant letters referred therein are enclosed herewith for information and necessary action please. Encl. Letter No. FOR.10-34/Cons/2000/Vol-II/Pt-/36293-305 dtd. 28.9.07. FOR.10-34/Cons/2000/Vol-I/Pt/2399-404 dtd. 5.5.06. FOR.10-34/Cons/2000/Vol-II/Pt/8744-50 dtd. 29.3.05. Ministry’s letter F. No.8-100/2002/FC dtd.31.3.06. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (illegible) Conservator of Forests (Cons) Cum Nodal Officer (FC) Itanagar. 22. It is interesting to note that the Loss Assessment Report forwarded vide letter dated 10.03.2014, does not refer to any authentic land records or any other notification to show that any part of submergence area was a village land, declared by some authorities. 23. We are surprised that at the beck and call of individuals and persons claiming to represent certain community/clan, a fresh verification is ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo. The Deputy Commissioner, Aalo has received the compensation amount from the NHPC Ltd. after submission of first verification report and therefore, the said authority is deemed to be aware of the entire facts relating to (a) calculation of submergence area, (b) grant of forest clearance by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India, (c) compensation claim bill, and (d) deposit of compensation money by the NHPC Ltd. This procedure of ordering re- verification of submergence land, while the previous report is in force amounts to a fresh document being created in connivance of the officers involved in the preparation of second verification report and therefore, nothing short of fraud. The learned Govt. The learned Govt. Advocate and the learned senior counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the DFO, Likabali Forest Division was empowered to over-turn the Forest Department’s claim that 3183 Ha. land which would be the submergence area was a forest land. 24. Thus, there can be no other view except that the Board Members, comprising of (i) EAC, Gensi; (ii) ADO, Gensi; (iii) HDO, Gensi; (iv) FRO, Gensi, C/o. DFO, Likabali; (v) Sri Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo have forwarded a manufactured and/or tailor-made report vide letter dated 10.03.2014 to benefit persons, in whose favour submergence area was re-verified and compensation amount was determined. 25. The learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had submitted that the first Loss Assessment Report was by Wapcos Centre for Environment, which is stated to have been submitted in February, 2008. The said report and assessment of compensation made thereafter, has remained unquestioned since its submission. Therefore, it is 17 (seventeen) years too late in the day for this Court to order a re-survey or re-verification. 26. The Court is of the considered opinion that if any re-verification of land is ordered now, it would open up a Pandora’s Box, and hundreds and thousands of claimants will surface and produce evidence of having interest in 1225 Ha. submergence land, which, as mentioned herein before consists of 640 Ha. forest land and 585 Ha. river bed land. It may be re-stated that the Nodal Officer, vide letter dated 02.04.2013, had clarified to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo that as per record, 3 Ha. land belongs to Dibe village have been compensated to (1) Sri Karkap Nada (0.5 Ha.), (2) Sri Tengi Nada (0.5 Ha.), (3) Sri Dapu Nada, and (4) Dibe Clan (1.50 Ha.). 27. The learned senior counsel for the appellants had forcefully submitted that the Loss Assessment Board, upon whose recommendation, compensation was paid by the respondent no.2 had mentioned that land of Dibe village fell within the submergence area. The Court is unable to accept the said submission. The said report is annexed as Annexure-R-9/A to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition, which is available at pages 233 to 245 of the Memo of Appeal. The Court is unable to accept the said submission. The said report is annexed as Annexure-R-9/A to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition, which is available at pages 233 to 245 of the Memo of Appeal. On a perusal of the entire report that was forwarded on 06.02.2008, it appears that total persons affected due to construction of Subansiri Lower HE Project is 77 numbers and they are actual Project Affected Persons and belong from Gengi (38) and Siberite (39) villages. It is clearly and unequivocally mentioned that in addition to that, 29 persons and some communities/clans from adjoining villages have either WRC or jhum and 7 other villages, namely, Tango, Ditten, Sibe, Ossumpuri, Lutak, Dibe and Durpai villages have community private land within submergence area of 1225 Ha. Beyond the submergence area, up to Tarajo Nallah, the area is owned by people of Gengi, Ossumpuri, Lutak and Dibe Village. Although, there are stray remark about land of Dibe Village, but under the sub-heading of “the details of village/ community/ class wise distribution of land under submergence”, land of Dibe Village is not mentioned and Board did not recommend any compensation for Dibe village or villagers. Only 29 persons from adjoining villages were recommended compensation for private land, WRC and community land, however, with clarification that the affected persons shall not be entitled to R&R packages. Thus, there is no report to the effect that Dibe Village or any homestead land of Dibe village fall within submergence area. The learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has admitted that four persons from Dibe Village had WRC and private land, as referred hereinabove to the extent of 3 (three) Ha., for which they were paid compensation. Accordingly, compensation amount of Rs.84,11,97,755/- was recommended. 28. Upon examining the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and formulated the following issues for decision, being:- i. Whether the WAPCOS report is exhaustive and final in respect of the total areas of land, that are coming under submergence? ii. Whether in view of payment of compensation of Rs. ii. Whether in view of payment of compensation of Rs. 51.29 Crores, to the 77 project affected families of Gengi and Siberite village and payment of 17.46 Crores to 29 individuals, including four persons of Dibe village and 10 villages &Clan/Communities, as recommended in the Loss Assessment Report of February, 2008 and subsequent payment of Rs. 15.36 Crores with interest thereon, there is any scope for re-assessment of the land of Dibe village as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner Aalo, Lower Siang, erstwhile West Siang District dated 04.04.2013? iii. Whether the claim made by the petitioner No.8 and 17, being the beneficiary of the Loss Assessment Report of 2008 and accepting the compensation on undertaking of making no such claim in future, is hit by the Doctrine of election? iv. Whether Loss Assessment Report, dated 10.03.2014, so prepared by the EAC cum Nodal Officer for NHPC, identifying 615 Ha of land of Dibe Village and recommending payment of Rs. 79,87,44,640/-, being the compensation, was prepared by persons with required expertise in that line so as to make the same acceptable in the eye of law and whether it creates any legal right in favour of the petitioners and to get the same enforced against NHPC? 29. In light of the examination of materials before this Court, we are inclined to respectfully concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge that Wapcos Report and the Loss Assessment Report have not been challenged either by the petitioners or by anyone else and therefore, the same has attained finality by a passage of 17 (seventeen) years. Pursuant to the Loss Assessment Report, a sum of Rs.51.29 Crore were paid to 77 PAFs, a sum of Rs.17.46 Crore was paid to individuals, including four persons from Dibe Village and 10 village/ clans/ communities, as recommended by the Loss Assessment Report forwarded on 06.02.2008. Later on, owing to orders passed by this Court, a further payment of Rs.15.36 Crore with interest was also paid. 30. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that in respect of issue no.1, as framed by the learned Single Judge, the Wapcos Report and consequent Loss Assessment Report is exhaustive and final in respect of 1225 Ha. forest land that is coming under submergence. The reasoning and decision by the learned Single Judge in respect of the said issue is hereby affirmed. 31. In respect of issue no. forest land that is coming under submergence. The reasoning and decision by the learned Single Judge in respect of the said issue is hereby affirmed. 31. In respect of issue no. 2, as framed by the learned Single Judge, the Court is of the considered opinion that with the payment of compensation as referred in paragraph 29 above, there is no scope of any further scope for re- assessment of the land alleged to be of Dibe village, as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, erstwhile West Siang District, Aalo. The Court is of the considered opinion that the said authority had no power or jurisdiction to embark upon a re-assessment of land when no Court of law has annulled the Loss Assessment Report forwarded on 06.02.2008. Thus, the finding on issue no. (ii) is also affirmed. 32. The learned counsel for the appellant had raised a question as to whether it was permissible for the learned Single Judge to ignore the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 06.08.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 299(AP)/2013. In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has nowhere ignored the said order dated 06.08.2013. Nonetheless, as the point is raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the Court is of the view that as said order was obtained without arraying respondent nos. 2 and 3 as respondents, the said respondent nos.2 and 3 were not bound by the said order. Therefore, even though the learned Single Judge is not found to have ignored the said order dated 06.08.2013, the same was not relevant within the meaning and scope of section 42 of the Evidence Act, 1872 on the ground that NHPC Ltd. was not a party thereto, for which the said order would not bind them. 33. In respect of issue no. 3, insofar as the appellant nos. 8 and 17 are concerned, the said appellants, having accepted the compensation on submitting an undertaking that no claim would be made in future, is found to have been hit by the doctrine of election. Having accepted the compensation, they cannot make a fresh claim. The finding of the learned Single Judge on the said issue is also affirmed. 34. In respect of issue no. Having accepted the compensation, they cannot make a fresh claim. The finding of the learned Single Judge on the said issue is also affirmed. 34. In respect of issue no. (iv), the appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the members of the Board had any expertise to undertake re- verification of land and to re-assess compensation. In this regard, it is seen from rd the contents of the hereinbefore quoted letter dated 3 April, 2008, issued by the Conservator of Forests (Cons)- Cum- Nodal Officer (FC), Department of Forest, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh that his verification and assessment is contrary to the stand of the Department of Environment and Forests. Therefore, the DFO, being one of the member of the Board and the Board having taken a stand which is contrary to the official stand of the Government, such re- assessment is found to be ex facie illegal and unsustainable and in defiance to the finding of the Environment and Forests Department. Accordingly, the Board is found to have embarked on a verification process, by totally ignoring the records of the Environment and Forests Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. No re-assessment ought to have been ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, merely on the request and/or representation submitted by an individual or a group of persons. From the Memo of Appeal, it is seen that the State has not filed any affidavit in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge to show that the Deputy Commissioner had been vested with the power to order a re-assessment and/or re-verification of submergence area by disregarding the previous verification and/or assessment of the submergence area, based on which compensation was quantified and paid. The Deputy Commissioner, erstwhile West Siang District had no business to undertake activity of re-assessment of forest land falling within submergence zone, unless an authority competent to do so had made an official request to the said Deputy Commissioner. If such a re-verification and re-assessment is given the imprimatur of the Court, it would create total uncertainty in the financial outlay of any developmental work and moreover, a re-assessment would be made on a drop of a hat, merely because someone is dissatisfied with the land acquisition award. If such a re-verification and re-assessment is given the imprimatur of the Court, it would create total uncertainty in the financial outlay of any developmental work and moreover, a re-assessment would be made on a drop of a hat, merely because someone is dissatisfied with the land acquisition award. Thus, on all counts, the Loss Assessment Report, which was forwarded on 10.03.2014, is not found to be sustainable on facts and in law and therefore, the Court cannot find any apparent error in the rejection of such computation of compensation by the NHPC Ltd. The appellants could not show that document was produced before the learned Single Judge to show that any of the appellants had land pass-book issued in their favour by a competent authority. The appellants have also failed to show any document to show that any homestead land of Dibe Village fell within the submergence area. There is also no document to counter the previous assessment of the submergence area, where land of four persons to the extent of 3.00 Ha. land belonging to four persons from Dibe village have been compensated to (1) Sri Karkap Nada (0.50 Ha.), (2) Sri Tengi Nada (0.50 Ha.), (3) Sri Dapu Nada (0.50 Ha), and (4) Dibe Clan (1.50 Ha.). Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the finding and decision of the learned Single Judge on issue no. (iv) is hereby affirmed. 35. The Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the Government of Arunachal Pradesh should examine as to whether or not the act of the officials concerned to order a re-verification and re-assessment, when the previous land verification report and loss assessment report is holding the field, is an act of insubordination and indiscipline and whether or not an appropriate action against the concerned officers is necessary. 36. The appellants did not voice their grievance, if any, at an appropriate time. The appellants cannot claim ignorance of the process of survey and loss assessment because the appellant nos. 8 and 17 are already the beneficiaries who have received compensation. The appellants, thus, have waited on the fence for a long time. After substantial investment has been made by the NHPC Ltd. in the Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project, the appellants have made their claim, knowing that the respondent no.2 now cannot walk away from the project. 8 and 17 are already the beneficiaries who have received compensation. The appellants, thus, have waited on the fence for a long time. After substantial investment has been made by the NHPC Ltd. in the Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project, the appellants have made their claim, knowing that the respondent no.2 now cannot walk away from the project. Thus, the claim is also found to lack any bona fide, whatsoever. 37. In light of the discussions above, we do not find any merit in this intra-Court appeal and accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 38. We assess the cost at Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the appellants, jointly and severally, to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 within a period of 45 (forty five) days, failing which the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.