JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024 and for respondent Nos.3 —11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for the petitioner in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020; Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel-cum- Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020. 2. As a common question of law is involved in these two writ petitions, being WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and as agreed upon by both the parties, it is proposed to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment and order. 3. It is to be noted here that in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, the petitioner, namely, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, (herein after NHPC Ltd.), has challenged the legality of the award dated 23.01.2019 pertaining to acquisition of 142.61 Ha of jhum land, situated under Koronu Circle at Bhismaknagar, Lower Dibang Valley District, by which a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- , being the compensation, has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.3-11, to be paid by the present petitioner(NHPC). 4. And in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, 7(seven) petitioners have prayed for directing the respondent authorities, to release and disburse the compensation awarded vide award dated 06.11.2018, which received approval from the Government vide communication dated 23.01.2019. BACKGROUND FACTS:- 5. The background facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions are briefly stated as under:- “A plot of land, measuring 142.61 Ha, belonging to the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, was acquired by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, at Bhismaknagar, under Koronu Circle, under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadia Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation , 1947 (herein after referred to as the Regulation 1947) for rehabilitation and resettlement of the project affected families of Dibang Multipurpose Project, pursuant to requisition letter, dated 21.05.2018. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley (respondent No.2), vide Notification No. LM-178/2011/1471 issued under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 for rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced families and individuals of Dibang Multipurpose Project. The respondent No.2 then constituted a Board to assess the compensation, which the private respondents are entitled to. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley (respondent No.2), vide Notification No. LM-178/2011/1471 issued under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 for rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced families and individuals of Dibang Multipurpose Project. The respondent No.2 then constituted a Board to assess the compensation, which the private respondents are entitled to. The Board then made the assessment under the provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act ). Based on the assessment of the Board, the respondent No.2 had passed an award for a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- vide award dated 06.11.2018. The award was then sent to the Government for approval and the Government, vide communication, dated 23.01.2019 approved the same. 6. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 is that while acquiring the land, measuring 142.61 Ha, the respondent No.2 had applied three different modes, besides taking note of the Cabinet decision, dated 10.05.2018, in assessing the compensation. While the respondent authorities had acquired the land under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947, it had awarded compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and it had also applied the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008. The petitioner is aggrieved for application of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008. THE GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING THE AWARD:- 6.1. Basically on following grounds the impugned award has been challenged in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020:- (i) The ‘Jhum Land’ being a forest land could not have been acquired under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadia Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation , 1947, without prior approval of the Central Government under the provision of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of such land for non-forest purpose. As no prior approval from the Central Govt. As no prior approval from the Central Govt. is taken, acquisition of the land under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadia Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation , 1947, is illegal and as such the impugned award is a nullity; (ii) The award was passed having assessed the compensation erroneously treating the Jhum Land as private land and applying Chapter IX of the State R & R Policy, 2008 and also followed the principles of assessment of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 erroneously and as such, the award is illegal; (iii) That, the market value of ‘Jhum Land’ cannot be determined by following the principle laid down in RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and as such the Cabinet decision to pay land compensation on acquisition of ‘Jhum Land’ on the basis of the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Board with approval of the Govt. is not tenable. (iv) That, the Cabinet Decision is contrary to the State R & R Policy, 2008 and the Circular issued subsequent to the Cabinet Decision dated 01.06.2018 is illegal as the same cannot supersede the provision of Section 10 of 1947 Regulation. (v) That, the award is illegal in as much as three different modes had been adopted in acquiring the land at Bhismaknagar and determining the compensation i.e. under Section 10 of Regulation, 1947 and under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and also as per terms of the Cabinet decision dated 10.05.2018; (vi) That, under the National Forest Policy the ‘Jhum Land’, being a forest land, the State R & R Policy, 2008 and RFCTLARR Act , 2013 has no application for assessment of compensation on acquisition/diversion of such Jhum Land; (vii) That acquisition of ‘Jhum Land’, being a forest land under National Forest Policy and under the State R & R Policy, 2008 its acquisition under Section 10 of the Regulation 1947 is contrary to the law laid down in the case of T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 , in terms of which Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 overrides the legal effects of other legislation or policy which run counter to the aforesaid provision. (viii) That, ‘Jhum Land’ cannot be treated as private land and Un-Classed State Forest (USF) at the same time. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 , in terms of which Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 overrides the legal effects of other legislation or policy which run counter to the aforesaid provision. (viii) That, ‘Jhum Land’ cannot be treated as private land and Un-Classed State Forest (USF) at the same time. And that the authority had erroneously treated the ‘Jhum Land’ as private land and forest land at the same time and that being so the principle of assessment of compensation laid down in RFCTLARR Act , 2013 is only applicable in case of private land and State R & R Policy, 2008 is applicable only in case of USF. Thus, application of Cabinet decision in determining the market value of the ‘Jhum Land’ and enhancing the award amount is arbitrary; (ix) That, the impugned award is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. And the petitioners in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024, are aggrieved for non implementation of the award, having acquired their land in the year 20.08.2018, by the respondent No.2. 8. The respondents in both the petition have filed affidavit-in-opposition and they had categorically denied the averments made in both the writ petitions. SUBMISSIONS: - 9. Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner NHPC in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 submits that the land of the respondent Nos.3—11 were acquired by the respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, at the behest of the petitioner NHPC for resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected families of Dibang Multipurpose Project and for acquisition of the aforementioned land measuring 142.61 Ha, the respondent No.2 had adopted three different modes. 9.1. Mr. Tiwari, further submits that the respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District acquired the land under Section 10 of Regulation, 1947 and thereafter, determined the compensation under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and also as per Cabinet decision dated 10.05.2018, and while determining the compensation, the respondent No.2 had awarded 25% of the net present value of the total amount of compensation as per the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008. 9.2. Mr. 9.2. Mr. Tiwari, however, admitted that though the land is acquired under Section 10 of the Regulation 1947, yet, the compensation can be awarded under the Act of 2013 and the petitioner is not aggrieved on the said mode, in view of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 15/2022 (The State of Arunachal Pradesh and two others vs. MihinLaling and Ors.) , but, the petitioner is aggrieved in awarding 25% of the net present value of the awarded amount as per the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008. 9.3. It is the further submission of Mr. Tiwari that the petitioner NHPC in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, is ready to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.3—11 as per the entitlement under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and therefore, Mr. Tiwari has contended that the impugned award, dated 06.11.2018, by which 25% of the net present value was awarded to the respondent Nos.3—11, is illegal and arbitrary and Section 107 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 never authorizes the respondent No.2 to award any compensation under the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 and therefore, Mr. Tiwari has contended to set aside the impugned award or to modify the same by deleting the net present value. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel-cum- Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that the Act of 2013 is a beneficial legislation and while interpreting a beneficial legislation, the widest possible meaning has to be given to its provision and as such, the respondent No.2 while assessing the compensation has adopted the Clause 9.1 of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 to give additional benefit to the respondent Nos.3—11 as per Section 107 of the Act of 2013. Referring to Section 103 of the Act of 2013, Mr. Referring to Section 103 of the Act of 2013, Mr. Choudhury submits that the provision of the Act of2013 shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008 is the existing policy of the Government to compensate the poor villagers, whose land is acquired by the respondent No.2 for resettlement of the project affected families and though the said policy cannot be read as an Act or Rules, being not enacted by the State Legislature, yet, Section 107 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 provides for making provision for rehabilitation and resettlement, which is more beneficial to the land owners than the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Mr. Choudhury has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhneyi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1992 (3) SCC (supp) 217. 10.1. Mr. Choudhury, referring to some of the cases of acquisition of land for the petitioner NHPC, submits that the petitioner has already paid the net present value as provided in Clause 9.1 of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 to some of the project affected families and in the present case, they have refused to pay the net present value to the respondent Nos.3—11 and thereby violates the provision under Article 16(4) and 19(4) of the Constitution of India. 10.2. Further, Mr. Choudhury submits that while assessing the compensation, the representative of the NHPC/petitioner was present on 11.10.2018 and the respondent No.2 has constituted a Board and on the basis of recommendation of the Board, the respondent No.2 has assessed the compensation and now the petitioner NHPC has turn around and that there is no merit in the petition No. WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, and therefore, Mr. Choudhury has contended to dismiss the petition. 10.3. Mr. Choudhury also pointed out that there is delay of 1½ years in filing the petition and the date of approval of the award was 15.12.2018 and the writ petition was filed on 12.09.2020 and there is more than 1½ years delay and the same has not been explained by the petitioner herein. 10.4. Further, Mr. 10.3. Mr. Choudhury also pointed out that there is delay of 1½ years in filing the petition and the date of approval of the award was 15.12.2018 and the writ petition was filed on 12.09.2020 and there is more than 1½ years delay and the same has not been explained by the petitioner herein. 10.4. Further, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that there is also a provision for appeal against the award under Section 74 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 but, the petitioner has not taken recourse of the same and as alternative remedy is available, this writ petition is also not maintainable and under such circumstances, Mr. Choudhury has contended to dismiss the petition. 11. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024 also subscribed the submission of the learned Advocate General in respect of the provision of appeal as provided in Section 74 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013. Mr. Das submits that the section provides for filing an appeal to the High Court within 60 days from the date of award, but the petitioner in WP(C) No.242 (AP)/2020 and respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 has not availed the said provision. Mr. Das, further submits that there is also delay in filing the petition and the same has not been explained by the petitioner NHPC. It is the further submission of Mr. Das that while awarding the compensation i.e. 25% of the net present value, as per the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District (respondent No.2) had not committed any illegality or impropriety. 11.1. It is the further submission of Mr. Das that though there is no diversion of the forest land under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, as in the case of Shiso-Attaya village, where the NHPC had awarded compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner incorporating the 25% Net Present Value as provided in the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008, yet the land was un- class forest land and the petitioners are entitled to compensation under Section 29 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013. 11.2. Further submission of Mr. 11.2. Further submission of Mr. Das is that the petitioners in WP(C)No.230(AP)/2024 are ready to accept the compensation under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 if the NHPC has assessed the compensation in total compliance of the provision for assessing the compensation, as laid down in the schedule of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and award the compensation under Section 29 of the Act of 2013 for the forest and crops standing on the acquired land and that the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District (respondent No.2) has rightly assessed the compensation and the same requires no interference of this Court. 12. In reply to the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned Advocate General and Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent NHPC in the said petition, submits that the land acquired for resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected families is not a forest land and there is no diversion as required under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as in the case of Shiso-Attaya village where there was diversion of forest land and Chapter-IX of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 cannot be applied in respect of private land. In respect of delay in filing the petition, Mr. Tiwari submits that the petitioners had earlier preferred another writ petition, being WP(C) No.182(AP)/2019 and the same was withdrawn on 25.06.2019, with liberty of the Court and the same has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 29 of the WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020. Mr. Tiwari also submits that there was also lockdown from 25.03.2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic and there was a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Muto Writ Petition No.03 of 2020, wherein the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, is excluded from the purview of limitation and as such there is no delay. 12.1. Further, Mr. Tiwari submits that the land was acquired under Section 10 of the Regulation 1947 and not under the Act of 2013 and as such, the provision of Section 74 of the Act of 2013 is not applicable and though the petitioners had contended that the acquired land is a Un-class State Forest land, yet the same has not been defined in the Act and that the petitioner in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 is ready to award compensation whatever the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 are entitled to under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013. 13. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through both the petitions and also the impugned award and also gone through the relevant provisions of law and the decision relied upon by Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.242(AP)/2020. THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT:- 14. In view of the stand taken by the parties and in view of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, the issue before this Court is:- (i) Whether the State R & R Policy, 2008 and the Cabinet Decision, dated 10.05.2018, are applicable in assessment of the compensation of the land at Bhismaknagar, so acquired by the respondent No.2? (ii) Whether the respondent No.2 had correctly assessed the compensation, which the private respondents No.3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and petitioners in WP(C) No. 230(AP)/ 2024 are entitled to ? 15 . That a perusal of the records of both petitions the followings are undisputed facts in both the petitions:- (i) The petitioner -NHPC in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, had sent onerequisition letter, dated 21.05.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District for acquiring the land of the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, for rehabilitation and re-settlement of the project affected families of Dibang Valley Multipurpose project; (ii) Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, had, pursuant to the said requisition had acquired a plot of land, measuring 142.61 Ha, belonging to the petitioners in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024, at Bhismaknagar, under Koronu Circle, for rehabilitation and resettlement of the project affected families of Dibang Valley Multipurpose Project. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District (respondent No.2), had thereafter issued Notification No. LM-178/2011/1471, under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 acquiring the said plot of land. (iv) The respondent No.2 had constituted a Board, comprising of 8 th members vide order dated 11 Oct, 2018 (Annexure-P/3) to assess the compensation, which the private respondents are entitled to. (v) The Board then made the assessment under the provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act ). (vi) Based on the assessment of the Board, the respondent No.2 had passed an award for a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- vide award dated06.11.2018. (vii) The award under section 23 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, read as under:- Sl. No. Details Remarks 1. Name of project DMP(NHPC Ltd) 2. (vi) Based on the assessment of the Board, the respondent No.2 had passed an award for a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- vide award dated06.11.2018. (vii) The award under section 23 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, read as under:- Sl. No. Details Remarks 1. Name of project DMP(NHPC Ltd) 2. Date and Time of Notification Notification Dated 30th Aug 2018 Enclosed 3. Situation and Extent of Land in Hectares, Site Plan 142 hectares including 7.5 Ha for land For R & R Site, Bhismaknagar 4. Description of the land Horticultural-Motorable, Cultivable-Motorable 5. Name of persons with interest in the land TunkuPulu AkeneLinggi Ere Linggi AyuMisaya AngiioPulu TunkuPulu PachuPulu Mangu Mimi Mite Ninggi RegusoPulu Details in Annexure 2 6. Amount Allowed for Trees/Crops/Building etc. Rs. 2525384 Details in Annexure 2 7. Basis of Calculation Section 26,29,30 and Schedule I of RFCTLARR Act 2013, Details in Annexure 1 & 2 8 Addl. Compensation i.e. 12% Interest Rs.3204714 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 9. Total Compensation Rs. 187766717 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 10. Solatium Rs. 187766717 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 11. Gross Compensation Rs. 404639,069 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 12. Damages/Additional 25% of NPV Details in Annexure 1 & 2 13. Admn. Cost Rs. 160,23,571 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 14. Final Compensation Rs. 4206,62,641 Details in Annexure 1 & 2 (viii) The award was then sent to the Government for approval and the Government, vide communication, dated 23.01.2019, had approved the same. (ix) While the respondent authorities had acquired the land under Section10 of the Regulation 1947, it had awarded compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and it had also applied the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008 and awarded Net Present Value of 25% as per Clause 9.1 of the State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008. (x) The State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008, is neither made by the legislatures of the State nor by law made by Parliament, rather it was made by an executive order. (xi) There is some delay in filing the writ petition. While the award was made on 06.11.2018 and approved by the Government on 23.01.2029, the petition was filed on 11.09.2020. (xii) The land in question is neither a community land nor a forest land and there was no diversion of land under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. (xi) There is some delay in filing the writ petition. While the award was made on 06.11.2018 and approved by the Government on 23.01.2029, the petition was filed on 11.09.2020. (xii) The land in question is neither a community land nor a forest land and there was no diversion of land under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. (xiii) The Board constituted by the respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibong Valley District had assessed the compensation under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, without taking into account Section 29 of the said Act. (xiv) In the case of acquisition of land for the same project in the village –Sishu Attiya, the NHPC had paid the compensation including the Net Present Value of 25% as provided in the State R & R Policy. (xv) Section 74 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, provides for appeal to the High Court in the event of the requiring body or any person aggrieved by the award passed by an authority under Section 69 of the Act. But, this alternative remedy was not availed by the petitioner NHPC, instead it preferred the present petition. 16. Now, an endeavor will be made to deal with the issues raised by the learned Advocates of both sides. 16.1. The Issue of Delay. It is not in dispute that while the award was made on 06.11.2018, and approved by the Government on 23.01.2019, the petition was filed on 11.09.2020. However, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no time limit for filing a writ petition. But, there should be a reasonable time to file the writ petition. This reasonable time is not prescribed in the rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, but, the words “reasonable time”, as explained in the case of Veerayeeammal v. Seeniammal reported in 2002 (1) SCC 134, as under:- “ 13. The word “reasonable” has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of the “reasonable time” is to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case. In other words it means, as soon as circumstances permit.” 16.2. In the instant case, it appears that the NHPC in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, had at first filed one WP(C) 182(AP)/2019 on 25.06.2019, and on the assurance of amicable settlement, said petition was withdrawn on 23.10.2019, with liberty. But, as assured by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh no fresh assessment was done. Though, an order was passed rescinding the award dated 20.12.2019, yet subsequently, the same was recalled on 24.03.2020. Further, it appears that from 25.03.2020, the Govt. of India had declared nationwide lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic and consequently, normal functioning of the courts were disrupted. However, digital filing and virtual mode of hearing was made available later on and thereafter, on 11.09.2020, the petitioner had again filed the present petition, challenging the award dated20.12.2019. 16.3. It is to be noted here that taking cognizance of the extraordinary situation prevailing at the relevant point of time, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Muto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020, had directed vide Order dated 10.01.2022 that the limitation prescribed under the General Law or Special Laws whether condonable or not, w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. 16.4. While the submission of Mr. Choudhury and Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel are examined in the light of given factual as well as legal position, this Court is unable to record concurrence to the submission of Mr. Choudhury and Mr. Das that there is any unreasonable delay in filing the present petition. Indisputably, no time limit is prescribed for filing a writ petition. Here in this case, even though some delay was there, yet, there is also explanation for the same and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerayeeammal (supra), the reason so forthcoming is found to be reasonable. 17. Section 74 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013. Indisputably, no time limit is prescribed for filing a writ petition. Here in this case, even though some delay was there, yet, there is also explanation for the same and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerayeeammal (supra), the reason so forthcoming is found to be reasonable. 17. Section 74 of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013. This Section provides for appeal to the High Court in the event of the requiring body or any person aggrieved by the award passed by an authority under Section 69 of the Act. It read as under:- 74. Appeal to High Court.– (1) The Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the Award passed by an Authority under section 69 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of Award: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. (2) Every appeal referred to under sub-section (1) shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of such appeal within six months from the date on which the appeal is presented to the High Court. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “High Court” means the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the land acquired or proposed to be acquired is situated. 17.1. As stated herein above, the petitioner had not filed any appeal under Section 74 of the Act. Instead it had preferred the present writ petition. But it appears that the land in question was acquired vide Notification No. LM- 178/2011/1471, under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, and the award was made under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. There was no acquisition proceeding under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner NHPC has rightly pointed this out that as there was no acquisition proceeding under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, writ petition is the only adequate and effective remedy. The submission of Mr. Tiwari is found to be plausible and accordingly, the same is accepted. 18. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner NHPC has rightly pointed this out that as there was no acquisition proceeding under RFCTLARR Act, 2013, writ petition is the only adequate and effective remedy. The submission of Mr. Tiwari is found to be plausible and accordingly, the same is accepted. 18. Status of the land at Bhismaknagar:- Though, argument and counter arguments were advanced at the Bar, regarding the status of the land in question is a ‘jhum land’ and also as Unclassed th State Forest, yet, from the Notification dated 30 August 2018 (Annexure- P/2) and from the Award dated 06.11.2018 at Sl. No.4 Description of Land (Annexure-P/4) and also in the Board Report On Assessment Of Property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.) dated 05.11.2018, (Page 48 of the petition) reveals that the lands belonging to the private respondent in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 are horticultural/agricultural cultivable- motorable land . It was neither an un-classed forest land nor a ‘notified forest’. And admittedly, there was no conversion of the land as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 18.1. Though Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, tried to impress upon this Court that the land at Bhismaknagar is a ‘Jhum Land’, yet, having gone through the definition of ‘Jhum Land’ in Section 2(b) and the Explanation therein, this Court left unimpressed with the th same, in view of unambiguous terms, used in the Notification dated 30 August, 2018 and in the Award dated 06.11.2018, and also in the Board Report On Assessment Of Property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.) dated 05.11.2018, to describe the land as horticultural/agricultural cultivable-motorable land. 19. The State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008. On the lines of the National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2007, the State of Arunachal Pradesh also had formulated The State’s Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2008 for providing greater benefit to the project affected families, in view of scarcity of non-forest land and overdependence of tribal populace on forests. 19. The State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008. On the lines of the National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2007, the State of Arunachal Pradesh also had formulated The State’s Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2008 for providing greater benefit to the project affected families, in view of scarcity of non-forest land and overdependence of tribal populace on forests. The aim and object of the policy is to addresses the need for improving the living standards of displaced families and their welfare on sustained basis and also strives to minimize displacement, provide adequate compensation as also to facilitate harmonious relationship between the requiring body and the project affected families. The basic objectives of the policy are stated herein below:- (i) to minimize displacement and to identify non- displacing or least displacing alternatives; (ii) to provide appropriate and adequate compensation to the affected families; (iii) to provide adequate social and physical infrastructure at rehabilitation site keeping in view the cultural and emotional values of tribal community as also to provide necessary community services and facilities; (iv) to be relocated as village units, community or clan in consultation with the displaced communities; (v) to improve the standard of living of the project affected displaced families at the resettlement site; (vi) to compensate adequately the project affected tribal community for the extinction of their traditional rights and privileges of USF land use and collection of forest produce; (vii) to facilitate harmonious relationship between the Requiring Body and the Project Affected Families. 19.1. As stated herein above, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District (respondent No.2), having issued Notification No. LM-178/2011/1471, under Section 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 for acquiring the said plot of land, constituted a Board to assess the compensation, which the private respondent Nos.3 to 11 are entitled to. The Board then made the assessment under the provision of RFCTLARR Act . And based on the assessment of the Board, the respondent No.2 had passed an award for a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- vide award dated 06.11.2018. The award received approval of the Government on 23.01.2019. The Board then made the assessment under the provision of RFCTLARR Act . And based on the assessment of the Board, the respondent No.2 had passed an award for a sum of Rs.42,06,62,641/- vide award dated 06.11.2018. The award received approval of the Government on 23.01.2019. While making the award, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, had assessed the compensation following the principle laid down in the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, though the land was acquired under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947 and it had also applied the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008 and further awarded Net Present Value of 25%. The Argument and Counter Arguments regarding applicability of State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008:- 19.2. Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner NHPC submits that Chapter IX of the R & R Policy, 2008 lays down schemes of compensation on diversion of un-classed state forest and reserved forest for non forest purpose, and under the scheme, on diversion of un-classed state forest for non-forest purpose, the community is entitled to get compensation against extinction of their traditional rights. And therefore, the compensation under Chapter IX of the R & R Policy, 2008 is to the community. Further contention of Mr. Tiwari is that the land in question at Bhismaknagar is neither a ‘Jhum Land’ as per definition of Regulation 2(b) of 1947 Regulation, nor it is an un-classed forest land as there was no diversion of the same for non-forest purpose, as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and also it is not a reserved forest or a community land as defined in Section 2(c) of the Regulation, rather it is the pleaded case of the private respondents that the land is their private land and on such count, the R & R Policy, 2008 is not applicable in the present case and the Cabinet Decision, dated 10.05.2018 also would not come into assistance of the State, as it is nothing but reiteration of the R & R Policy, 2008. 19.3. The counter submission of Mr. 19.3. The counter submission of Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel-cum- Advocate General is that as per Section 107 of the RFCTLARR Act, the State can enact law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under this Act or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than what is provided under this Act. Referring to Section 103 of the Act, Mr. Choudhury also submits that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. Further contention of Mr. Choudhury is that, though R & R Policy, 2008 is not a law enacted by the State Legislature or Parliament, yet it is made by the Executive and as per Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, Executive order is no less a law under Article 13(3), which defines law to include,among other things, order, bye- laws and notifications, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). And as such, the R & R Policy, 2008 and the Cabinet decision dated 10.05.2018 is very much applicable in the case in hand. 19.4. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the WP(C) No. 230(AP)/2024, and private respondents in WP(C) No. 242(AP)/2020 also subscribes the submission of Mr. Choudhury. Mr. Das, contended that the land in Bhismaknagar is a state un-classed forest land and as such, the R & R Policy, 2008 and the decision of the State Cabinet dated, 10.05.2018, is very much applicable in the present case. 19.5. Section 103 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013. This Section provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to existing laws. It read as under:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 19.6. Section 107 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. This Section provides for power of State Legislatures to enact any law more beneficial to affected families, which read as under:- Nothing in this Act shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under this Act or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under this Act. 19.7. It is also to be mentioned here that while interpreting the word making “any provision” under Article 16(4), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) has held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permit the State to make “any provision”.The provision may be made either by an Act of legislature or by rule or regulation made under such Act or in the absence of both, by executive order. Executive order is no less a law under Article 13(3) which defines law to include, among other things, order, bye-laws and notifications. In the said case, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under:- Question VI: Would making “any provision” under Article 16(4) for reservation “by the State” necessarily have to be by law made by the legislatures of the State or by law made by Parliament? Or could such provisions be made by an executive order? 19.8. The question was answered in paragraph No. 526 as under: “ 526. The language of Article 16(4) is very clear. It enables the State to make a “provision” for the reservation of appointments to the posts. The provision may be made either by an Act of legislature or by rule or regulation made under such Act or in the absence of both, by executive order. Executive order is no less a law under Article 13(3) which defines law to include, among other things, order, bye-laws and notifications. The provisions of reservation under Article 16(4) being relatable to the recruitment and conditions of service under the State, they are also covered by Article 309 of the Constitution. Article 309 expressly provides that until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature, the rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services under the Union or a State may be regulated by rules made by the President or the Governor as the case may be. Further, wherever the Constitution requires that the provisions may be made only by an Act of the legislature, the Constitution has in express terms stated so. For example, the provisions of Article 16(3) speak of the Parliament making a law, unlike the provisions of Article 16(4) which permit the State to make “any provision”. Further, wherever the Constitution requires that the provisions may be made only by an Act of the legislature, the Constitution has in express terms stated so. For example, the provisions of Article 16(3) speak of the Parliament making a law, unlike the provisions of Article 16(4) which permit the State to make “any provision”. Similarly, Articles 302, 304 and 307 require a law to be enacted by the Parliament or a State legislature as the case may be on the subjects concerned. These are but some of the provisions in the Constitution, to illustrate the point.” 19.9. There is no quarrel in the Bar about the aforesaid proposition of law and the competency of the Executive to make the provision i.e. the R & R Policy, 2008, as per provision of Section 107 of the RFCTLARR Act and the same being a law without being enacted by the State Legislature or by the Parliament. As provided in Section 103, the provisions of RFCTLARR Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. The quarrel relates to the applicability of the R & R Policy in the present case. 19.10. However, having perused the R & R Policy, 2008, it appears that its application by and large depends upon the nature/class of the land so acquired. That as held herein above, a perusal of the Notification dated 30th August, 2018 (Annexure-P/2) and from the Award dated 06.11.2018 at Sl. No.4 Description of Land (Annexure-P/4) and also in the Board Report On Assessment Of Property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.)dated 05.11.2018,(Page 48 of the petition) reveals that the lands belonging to the private respondents in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, are horticultural/agricultural cultivable-motorable land. It was neither an un-classed forest land nor a notified forest. And this fact is apparent from Annexure-P/6 at page No.51 of the petition. 19.11. A perusal of the impugned award dated 06.11.2018, at page No.46 of the petition also indicates that the Deputy Commissioner had awarded 25% of NPV as Damages/additional at Sl. No.12 and the same also finds mention in the Board Report On Assessment Of Property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.), dated 05.11.2018 at Sl. No. 10. No.12 and the same also finds mention in the Board Report On Assessment Of Property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.), dated 05.11.2018 at Sl. No. 10. This Net Present Value (NPV) is provided under Chapter-IX, Clause 9.1(iii) of State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008, which read as under: (iii) In addition, in case of diversion of Un-classed State Forest, the community shall also be paid compensation against extinction of their traditional rights over USF land use @ 25 % of NPV as determined by Govt. of India from time to time. This compensation to the community is over and above the NPV paid to CAMPA. 19.12. Thus, a cursory perusal of the Chapter-IX, Clause 9.1(iii) indicates that 25 % of NPV is payable only in case of diversion of Un-classed State Forest (USF), and the community shall also be paid compensation against extinction of their traditional rights over USF land use. Since the Board Report On Assessment Of property For Land Acquired For R & R Site At Bhismaknagar For DMP (NHPC Ltd.) dated 05.11.2018,itself indicates that the lands belonging to the private respondents in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 are horticultural/agricultural cultivable- motorable land, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how the State R & R Policy, 2008 can be applied in the present case to award 25% NPV to the private respondents No.3 to 11 and petitioners in WP(C) No. 230(AP)/2024. And that being the position, this Court is left with no option but to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner NHPC. Thus, award of 25%NPV in the present case appears to be ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. 20. The Cabinet Decision:- The State Cabinet, Arunachal Pradesh in its meeting held on 10th May, 2018 on a Cabinet Note, regarding Unclassed State Forest, accepted the recommendation of the Committee that the land compensation is a must for acquisition of land termed as ‘Jhum Land’ in local language and extinguishment of rights in USF area. 20. The Cabinet Decision:- The State Cabinet, Arunachal Pradesh in its meeting held on 10th May, 2018 on a Cabinet Note, regarding Unclassed State Forest, accepted the recommendation of the Committee that the land compensation is a must for acquisition of land termed as ‘Jhum Land’ in local language and extinguishment of rights in USF area. The Cabinet also approved the recommendation of the committee that the necessary charges to Forest Department shall be payable for diversion of forest to non-forest purpose and the compensation assessed by the land Acquisition Collector be treated as composite compensation for diversion of forest area for non forest purpose and compensation to the community/individuals for extinguishment of their rights over the land. And to give effect of the Cabinet decision a Circular was also issued on 01.06.2018, subsequently. 20.1. Though argument was advanced that the Cabinet decision also favored the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, yet, having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the Cabinet decision, dated 10th May, 2018 also would not come into assistance of the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, in as much as it relates to Unclassed State Forest and admittedly, the land at Bhismaknagar is not an Unclassed State Forest. 21. The Case of Shiso-Attaya Village:- For construction of Dibang Multipurpose Project the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lower Dibang Valley District had acquired 15,00,000 sqm of land at Shiso-Attaya Village and Notification to that effect was published on08.01.2024 vide No. LMD-13011(1)/2021/1746. From the letter of the Deputy th Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing dated 15 March, 2024 (Annexure- A-35), at page No. 390 of the WP(C)No.230(AP)/2024 and the Annexure-‘A’, appended thereto at page No. 391, reveals that the while making assessment of the compensation to the land owners, 25% NPV was added and admittedly the same was paid to the land owners. But, from the Award, dated Nil, March 2024 at page No. 392, it appears that the said land is a Community Land (Uncultivated hill land). 21.1. Mr. Das, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent Nos. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and Mr. But, from the Award, dated Nil, March 2024 at page No. 392, it appears that the said land is a Community Land (Uncultivated hill land). 21.1. Mr. Das, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent Nos. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel –cum-Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh submits that the petitioner NHPC, while paying 25% NPV to the land owners of Shiso-Attaya Village, refused to pay the same to the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and thereby discriminate them and violates the right of private respondent Nos.3 to 11 and the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024. It is their further submission that there was no diversion of the Forest Land in Shiso-Attaya Village, as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The counter submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the NHPC is that the class of land in the case of at Shiso-Attaya Village and in the case of Bhismaknagar is different. And as such, the NPV, as per State R & R Policy, 2008 cannot be made applicable in the case of Bhismaknagar. 21.2. But, as stated in para No.20 above, the land at Shiso-Attaya Village, is a Community Land (Uncultivated hill land). Further, in the written argument the petitioner in WP(C) No.242 (AP)/2020and respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, a stand has been taken that the land at Shiso-Attaya Village was an unused USF community land of three clans and the same is on hill top and is a part of 4577.84 Ha of USF acquired for the project and vide Enclosure 2 of the written argument, the Govt. of India had given its approval for diversion under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This stand is not controverted by the other sides. Whereas, the land at Bhismaknagar is horticultural/agricultural cultivable- motorable land. Thus, due to difference of the classes of land in abovementioned places, this Court is of the view that the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 stands in a different footing from that of the land owners of Shiso-Attaya Village. Therefore, the submissions of Mr. Das, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel–cum-Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh left this Court unimpressed. 22. Therefore, the submissions of Mr. Das, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel–cum-Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh left this Court unimpressed. 22. Written Arguments of the Parties:- It is to be noted here that Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner NHPC in WP(C) No.242 (AP)/2020 and respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, have submitted their written synopsis of argument. From a perusal of the written argument and also from the submission of Mr. Tiwari, it becomes apparent that the petitioner NHPC in WP(C) No.242 (AP)/2020 is agreeable to pay compensation to the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and for private respondent No. 3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, as per mandate of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Further, Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024 and for private respondent No.3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020, also agreed to accept the compensation if assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 , in the event of payment ziraat to the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024, as while assessing the compensation, Section 29 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was not taken into account. 23. Since Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/NHPC in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 is agreeable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 whatever they are entitled to under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 , and since, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 and respondent No.3 to 11 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 is agreeable to accept the compensation, whatever they are entitled to, under the said Act, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the writ petitions with following directions:- (a) The respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.242(AP)/2020 and respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 shall constitute a Board to re-assess the compensation, which the petitioners in WP(C) No.230(AP)/2024 are entitled to, for acquiring this land at Bhismaknagar as per RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (b) The Board shall be constituted with adequate representation of the NHPC. (c) The Board shall assess the compensation, in each of the component, as specified in the First Schedule of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, in seriatum and further taking into account the provision of Section 29(2) of the Act of 2013, which provides for determination of value of the thing attached to the land or building. (d) The respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.242 (AP)/2020 and respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.230 (AP)/2024, on his satisfaction about compliance of the all the provisions in assessing the compensation, by the Board so constituted shall pass the award incorporating therein 12% interest per annum, on the market value of the land as provided under Section30(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. (e) The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within a period of 3(three)months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (f) To facilitate re-constitution of Board and to make fresh assessment and to pass fresh award, the impugned award, dated 06.11.2018 approved by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 23.01.2019, stands set aside and quashed. 24. In terms of above, these writ petitions stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own cost.