JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers. “I. a writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners, measuring more than 11.65 Acres located at Jyotinagar and Dirang, under Dirang Division of West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, by way of acquisition process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. “II. A writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to return the land of the petitioners, measuring more than 11.65 Acres located at Jyotinagar and Dirang, under Dirang Division of West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, within 2 (two) months after payment of adequate compensation from the date when they have illegally occupied the land of the petitioners, if the respondents do not want to acquire it by way of acquisition process. “III. Pass any other order/orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper”. 2. It is the projected case of the petitioners that in the year, 1965, the Indian Army has forcefully occupied the land of the petitioners which measured more than 10 Acres at Dirang in the West Kameng District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Though, such occupation was objected to, the said objection was not paid any heed to. It is, however, the case of the petitioners that such occupation was done during the time of the predecessors of the petitioners and an understanding was arrived at a later point of time that certain hire charge would be paid by the Indian Army. It has been projected that as per the said understanding, the hire charge was paid of an amount of Rs.180/- per annum per Acre. However, from the period of 1985-1990, the Indian Army was gradually vacating the land and thereafter, the Sashastra Seema Bal (for short, ‘SSB’) had started occupying the land which was without the consent of the petitioners. It is also averred that apart from the aforesaid land, another additional plot of land of 1.5 Acres have been occupied by the SSB. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Indian Army had vacated the land, the hire charge was paid till the year, 2016 and though, in the meantime, the possession was taken over by the SSB nothing has been paid till now. It is the case of the petitioners that though the Indian Army had vacated the land, the hire charge was paid till the year, 2016 and though, in the meantime, the possession was taken over by the SSB nothing has been paid till now. It is also averred that the petitioners had approached the District Administration which was of no avail and finally the instant writ petition has been filed for relief as indicated above. 3. I have heard Shri O. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 whereas Shri Y. Doloi, learned Senior penal counsel for the Union of India appears for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned State counsel is present for the respondent Nos. 8, 9 & 10. 4. Shri Pada, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the period when the land in question was in the possession of the Indian Army, the hire charge, as noted above was paid and as such payment continued till the year, 2016. However, after taking over the possession by the SSB, which was also illegally done, nothing has been paid and the petitioners have also not consented for taking over such possession. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in Paragraphs-6 & 7 of the writ petition and has contended that though initially the land under the occupation was about 10 Acres subsequently 1.5 Acres have also been encroached by the SSB. He has also referred to the communication of June, 1983 by the Assistant Military Estate Officer, Tezpur to the Deputy Commissioner of the District from where it appears that the private land involved is of 10.150 Acres and it is the land which belongs to the petitioners and is the subject matter of this writ petition. 5. He has also referred to the statement of rental compensation which is counter signed by Addl. Deputy Commissioner in which not only the rate but also the amount involved for certain period has been stated. He has submitted that it is not in dispute till the year, 2016, the rent in question was paid and received by the petitioners. 5. He has also referred to the statement of rental compensation which is counter signed by Addl. Deputy Commissioner in which not only the rate but also the amount involved for certain period has been stated. He has submitted that it is not in dispute till the year, 2016, the rent in question was paid and received by the petitioners. The learned counsel has also relied upon an order dated 02.03.2016 passed in WP (C) 390 (AP) 2015 in which this Court in a similar matter had directed the authorities to acquire the land in question as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if they deem it fit, or the authorities would have to vacate the land in occupation on payment of reasonable compensation for the period of occupation is concern. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , (2020) 2 SCC 569 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the rights of a citizen on property which was in the Constitution before its amendment in the year, 1978. It has been clarified that though after the said amendment, Article 31 has been repealed, the said right continues to be a human right in a welfare State and is a constitutional right under Article 300-A. The learned counsel accordingly submits that appropriate directions be issued either to acquire the said land in accordance with law and pay the due compensation or otherwise vacate the land after payment of requisition compensation at a reasonable rate. 7. Per contra, Shri Kato, learned DSGI by referring to the affidavit-in- opposition filed on 23.04.2025 has submitted that the land in question was st allotted to the 21 Bn of the SSB way back which is discernible from the Tour th rd Notes of 16 -23 March, 1975. It is submitted that vast areas of the land are under the possession of the SSB and without there being specification of the land in question, the present claim may not even be maintainable. He has also submitted that the land was originally possessed by the Indian Army, for which requisite rent has already been paid and there may not be any liability of the SSB as such. 8. Shri Doloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. He has also submitted that the land was originally possessed by the Indian Army, for which requisite rent has already been paid and there may not be any liability of the SSB as such. 8. Shri Doloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 05.09.2024 and has clarified that there is no grievance of the petitioners against the Indian Army as such. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in Pargraphs-6 & 15 of the affidavit which are extracted hereinbelow:- “6…That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that based on the HEADQUARTERS 51 COMN ZONE SUB AREA vide No.2406/Q3 (9) dated 06.07.1967 and amendment letter No.2403/Q3 dated 31.03.1968 accorded Administrative Sanction for hiring/requisitioning of land measuring 20.375 areas i.e. 10.150 Acres as developed land and 10.225 Acres as Barren land in village Young, Dirang Circle. The Lease agreement pertains to land measuring 10.150 Acres at Young village was signed between the land owners and DEO, Tezpur on 30.11.1973 in presence of the Circle Officer, Dirang, Kameng District, NEFA and the lease rent for land measuring 10.150 Acres was paid to the land owners till the year, 2016 and the petitioner accepted and received the lease rent without any objection on the amount of lease rent. However, this office has no record whether the land was transferred to the Sashastra Seem Bal (SSB) by the Indian Army after vacation of the land as stated by the petitioners”. “15…That with regard to the Statements made in paragraph No. 17 of the writ petition, the humble deponent begs to state that the respondent authority Nos. 6 and 7 did not encroached any land of the petitioners. Rather, the land of the petitioners was held by the Army on hiring basis for which rental was paid to the petitioners from time to time till 2016. The petitioners has also confirmed in the writ petition that the Army has departed from the land in question. As such there is no question of acquisition of land of the petitioners by the Army Authorities as submitted by the petitioners”. He had also drawn the attention of this Court to the Chart whereby the details of payment made have been elaborately stated. As such there is no question of acquisition of land of the petitioners by the Army Authorities as submitted by the petitioners”. He had also drawn the attention of this Court to the Chart whereby the details of payment made have been elaborately stated. The learned CGC has submitted that it is up-to the Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He has also referred to the rent agreement which was entered into by the Army with the predecessors of the petitioners pertaining to the land in question. 9. Ms. Sangeeta, the learned State counsel has submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had never made any representation for acquiring the land and in this regard, she has referred to the averments made in Paragraph- 12 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 9 & 10 on 26.04.2022. She has also raised the issue that the instant proceeding consists of disputed question of fact which may not be able to be addressed by this Court. 10. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials placed on record have been carefully examined. 11. As per the facts projected, after the Chinese aggression in the year 1962, there was a requirement for the Indian Army to be stationed at strategic location and in this regard, the possession of the land in question was taken over. Though, an impression has been given that such taking over was not with the consent of the predecessors of the petitioners, the exigency of the situation was perhaps the reason for such taking over. In any case, such taking over is not the subject matter of this petition and the learned counsel for the petitioners has also admitted that subsequently an understanding was arrived at which also led to signing of an agreement for payment of yearly rent for the area in question. It also appears from the records and it is not in dispute that gradually Indian Army had left the area and according to the petitioners, the th area in question was taken over possession by the 38 Bn of the SSB which was without any consent. It is also averred that though the Army authorities had paid the rent till the year, 2016 though it was a meagre amount, the SSB has not paid anything after 2016 inspite of utilising the land. It is also averred that though the Army authorities had paid the rent till the year, 2016 though it was a meagre amount, the SSB has not paid anything after 2016 inspite of utilising the land. In this regard, the averments made in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition is required to be noted which is extracted hereinbelow. “7…That the petitioners beg to state that after vacation of land by the Indian Army, the 30 Bn. SSB illegally took over the land. Considerably, after passage of time, the 30 Bn. SSB gradually started further encroachment of private family land of the petitioners. Thus, being aggrieved of act of the 30 Bn. SSB, the petitioners on several occasions had submitted representations before the district administration. Pertinently, on 09.07.2013, the petitioners had again submitted a representation before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dirang, West Kameng District, by requesting for immediate interference and necessary action to vacate the 30 Bn. SSB from the encroached land”. 12. The grievance of the petitioners is that either the land is to be acquired by the SSB by payment of adequate compensation in accordance with law including the requisition compensation till such period of acquisition or otherwise, the land is required to be vacated and peaceful possession of the same be handed over to the petitioners. In this regard, the contention made on behalf of the SSB is liable to be taken into consideration. It has been argued that though vast areas of land are in the possession of the SSB, it is not clear from the petition as to whether the land in question is actually under the possession of the SSB. 13. To examine the aforesaid issue, it would be required to refer to the stand of the SSB in its affidavit-in-opposition filed on 23.04.2025 in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition. For ready reference, the reply to the Paragraph-7 of the writ petition which is given in Paragraph-8 of the affidavit-in-opposition is extracted hereinbelow:- “8…That with regards to statement made in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition, the answering deponent offers no comments being matter of record”. 14. From a reading of the aforesaid pleadings, this Court is of a firm opinion that there is no denial at all, not even an evasive denial on the facts projected. 15 . That apart, the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 14. From a reading of the aforesaid pleadings, this Court is of a firm opinion that there is no denial at all, not even an evasive denial on the facts projected. 15 . That apart, the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 6 & 7 has also been referred which would also throw sufficient light on the issue involved. The relevant pleadings of the said affidavit which has been extracted above would leave no room for doubt that it is the area in question which is in the possession of the SSB since the year, 2016. The averments made that no rent or any compensation has been paid since the year, 2016 has not been denied by any of the authority. While the State Government, in its affidavit has stated that there is no request for any acquisition of the land in question, there is no denial of any nature that compensation has not been paid. 16 . As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) , though the right to property is not a fundamental right after the 44 th amendment of the Constitution in the year, 1978, such right can be traced to Article 300-A of the Constitution. In this connection, it may be gainful to rely upon the judgment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd . vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others , (2005) 7 SCC 627 and the relevant observation are extracted hereinbelow:- “6…It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefore must be paid. 17 . In the aforesaid case of Vidya Devi (Supra) , it has also been laid down that in a welfare State like that of our country, the right to property continues to be a human right and it is also a Constitutional right under Article 300A. The possession which the petitioner has termed to be illegal of the SSB over the land in question is not in dispute. The possession which the petitioner has termed to be illegal of the SSB over the land in question is not in dispute. The obvious consequence is the aspect of the compensation for such illegal possession. If the land in question is a requirement of permanent nature for the SSB, it has all the avenue to get the same acquired by following the statute holding the field, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Even otherwise, if the land in question is considered to be required for a temporary period, the requisition amount for the same is also required to be paid to the owners. However, from the materials on record, it appears that no action of any nature has been taken either to pay the requisition amount or to pay the compensation amount after acquiring the land. 18. This Court has also noted that the version of one wing of the Government, namely, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is different from other wing of the Government which is respondent Nos. 6 to 7. It is a settled principle of law that the Government can speak in only one voice and in this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of Vadidlal Chemicals Ltd . vs. State of A.P. and Other s, (2005) 6 SCC 292 , wherein, the following observation were made and for ready reference, the relevant Paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:- “23…There is another reason why the action of the DCCT cannot be upheld. The primary facts relating to the processes undertaken by the appellant at its unit were known to the Department of Industries and Commerce and the DCCT. The only question was what was the proper conclusion to be drawn from these. The Department of Industries and Commerce which was responsible for the issuance of the 1993 G.O. accepted the appellant as an eligible industry for the benefits. Apart from the fact that it can be assumed that the Department of Industries was in the best position to construe its own order, we can also assume that in framing the scheme and granting eligibility to the appellant all the departments of the State Government involved in the process had been duly consulted. The State, which is represented by the Departments, can only speak with one voice. The State, which is represented by the Departments, can only speak with one voice. Having regard to the language of the 1993 G.O. it was the view expressed by the Department of Industries which must be taken to be that voice”. 19. It is accordingly directed that an exercise be made by the SSB to take a conscious decision regarding the nature of the possession and if the said land is required for a permanent purpose, immediate requisition be made to the District Administration for initiating an acquisition process in accordance with law. In the event, the SSB is of the opinion that such possession may not be a permanent nature then an exercise is required to be made by the District Administration for ascertaining the rental value for the land in question for the period under which the SSB is in possession and thereafter, the said rent be paid to the petitioners without any delay. It is also made clear that in the event, the first option is opted to acquire the land, the requisition amount from the date on which the possession of the land was taken till the date when the land is acquired has to be paid to the petitioners in accordance with law. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that a direction indicated below would serve the ends of justice. 21. It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the amount of the quantum which is to be determined by the appropriate authority in accordance with the statute holding the field, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and any person aggrieved would have the right to approach the authority under the said Act against such determination. The aforesaid exercise of determining the nature of the requirement of possession by the SSB be done within a period of 1 (one) month from today and thereafter, consequential steps be taken in accordance with law. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost(s).