JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers. “I. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/ or Certiorari and/ or any other appropriate order or direction to the official respondents, namely, Union of India through the Department of Defence and Indo Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter referred to as “ITBP through the Commandant 9 th Bn ITBP to take appropriate steps and regularize their illegal possession over the petitioner’s land by means of land acquisition under the RFCT Act, 2013 or in the alternative to vacate the land and pay damages/compensation for illegal occupation of petitioner’s land. 2. The petitioner has been presented by one petitioner in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Lohitpur village in the District of Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh. The members belong to Tindya, Kathak, Tamai and Boo clans and the petitioner has also annexed power of Attorneys to represent themselves in the present petition. 3. As per the projected case of the petitioner, from the time of their ancestors, they were in possession of an area of land out of which 96.97 Hectares was taken over possession by the Assam Rifles Battalion during the 1950’s. It is the specific case of the petitioner that such taking over possession was without any authority of law. Subsequently, the land was taken over by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) who is under illegal occupation. It has been stated that though the camp of the ITBP stretches to a total area of 145.41 HA, out of the same, 48.44 Hectare is reserved land and the remaining 96.97 HA is Unclassed State Forest Land (USF) which is the community land of the villagers. 4. The villagers have been representing before the authorities on numerous occasions for payment of adequate compensation but no heed has been paid to. In all such representations, it was specifically prayed that either the adequate compensation be paid to the villagers or the land be vacated and peaceful possession of the same be handed over to the villagers. 5. As the representations were not given any heed to, numerous applications under the RTI Act were submitted seeking specific information. In all such representations, it was specifically prayed that either the adequate compensation be paid to the villagers or the land be vacated and peaceful possession of the same be handed over to the villagers. 5. As the representations were not given any heed to, numerous applications under the RTI Act were submitted seeking specific information. For ready reference, the replies given on various dates are extracted hereinbelow:- “(i) 12.02.2024:-It was replied that the land under occupation ITBP at Lohitpur is not allotted to the user agency as on date; (ii) 09.09.2024:- (a) the land occupied by the 9 th ITBP at Lohitpur was diverted in favour of 2 nd A/R Vide No.FOR.8-56/99-FC dated 05.03.2022 for an area of 14541 Hectare as per below land breakup; (b) The 9 th BN ITBP is situated in RF for 48.433 Hectare in Udiomajam RF and 96.977 Hectare in US area, i.e. outside RF area; ©Yes, the 145.41 Hectare was diverted in favour of 2 nd AR & later on transferred in favour of 9 th BN ITBP vide No.8-56/1999-FC (Pt) dated 07.07.2015. (iii)15.10.2024:- (a)Notification of Denning RF and Udiomajam are enclosed; (b)This information may be sought from DFO, Lohit. Hence, RTI application is transferred under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 to Divisional Forest Officer, Lohit Forest Division, Tezu for providing information to the applicant. ©No, the USF is not notified. (d)NIL. (iv)24.10.2024:- (a)Notification of Udiomajam a Denning RF enclosed; (b)Maps of Udiomajam a Denning RF enclosed; ©No USF area has been notified in this division; (d)No de reservation of Udiomajam RF and Denning RF has been done. (v)14.11.2024:- (a) DNA in view of (b); (b)No”. 6. The matter was also was also raised before the National Commission for Schedule Tribes in the year, 2023, in which notice was issued. It has also been brought on record a letter dated 16.01.2024 issued by the Directorate of Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh that there were no records of Government land being allotted to the ITBP at Tezu. The matter was also raised before several other authorities and apart from exchange of certain communications no attempts have been made to redress the grievances of the villagers. 7. I have heard Shri D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri S. R. Raba, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. The matter was also raised before several other authorities and apart from exchange of certain communications no attempts have been made to redress the grievances of the villagers. 7. I have heard Shri D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri S. R. Raba, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 8. Shri Das, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute that out of the total land of 145.41 Hectare which is under the possession of the ITBP, 96.977 HA is USF Land which is owned by the community. In this regard, he has referred to the various communications including the RTI replies to buttress his claim. Specific reference has been made to the reply dated 09.09.2024 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Lohit which has been annexed as Annexure-P25 of the writ petition. He has also referred to the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008, more particularly, Chapter-VI thereof, which relates to “PRESENT MODE OF COMEPNSATION PACKAGE”. The aspect of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) is also incorporated in Regulation 6.2. Reference has also been made to Regulation 6.3 on the rights and privileges of the tribal people of the State. 9. For ready reference, Regulations 6.2 and 6.3 are extracted hereinbelow:- “6.2. In case of diverted forest area, irrespective of its legal status, the present set of compensation provided by a requiring body has three components, namely, (1) cost of raising Compensatory Afforestation, (2) Net Present Value (NPV), (3) Rights and Privileges enjoyed by tribal people living in and around forests. The cost of raising compensatory afforestation and the Net Present Value of the diverted forest land are collected from the user agency and deposited in the fund of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) created for the purpose and constituted by the Government of India in pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The cost of compensatory afforestation and NPV are charged mainly to redress the loss of forest and environmental services”. “6.3…The Rights and Privileges of tribal people, which automatically get extinguished on diversion of forest land are compensated monetarily. The cost of compensatory afforestation and NPV are charged mainly to redress the loss of forest and environmental services”. “6.3…The Rights and Privileges of tribal people, which automatically get extinguished on diversion of forest land are compensated monetarily. However, the monetary compensation (against diversion of USF area) provided to affected tribal people does not consider and account for the rights of USF land use by the Community/clan/ individual. The State Government levies royalty on removal of trees/usufructs from USF are for commercial purpose. Therefore, the present mode of compensation recognizes only the non-commercial rights of tribal people and not the perpetual loss of USF land use caused to the community”. 10. He has referred to Chapter-IX of the said Policy which is on Compensation against Diversion of Unclassed State Forest (USF) and Reserve Forest. Under Regulation 9.1 (iii), the compensation entitled by the community has also been stated which is extracted hereinbelow:- “9.1..The Deputy Commissioner being the Forest Land Settlement Officer should earmark the area (in hectare) of USF proposed to be diverted for the development of hydropower and other projects community-wise/Clan-wise and individual claimant-wise:- (i)The payment may be termed as compensation for loss of customary rights of collection of forest produce and traditional land use of USF; (ii) The Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Forest Settlement Officer, assisted by Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, shall work out compensation for the loss of rights and privileges of tribal people to collect and use forest produce from USF @ Rs.1,56,000/- per hectare for USF area and Rs.78,000/- per hectare for Reserved Forest and (if any rights and privileges are granted by notification constituting Reserve Forest), for base year 2008 as on 01.04.2008; (iii) In addition, in case of diversion of Unclassed 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 Government of India from time to time. This compensation to the community is over and above the NPV paid to CAMPA”. 11. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the aforesaid provision of the Policy has been brought to the notice of the Court to clarify the position inasmuch as, the respondent authorities in their defence has taken a stand of payment of certain amount as compensatory allowance. 11. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the aforesaid provision of the Policy has been brought to the notice of the Court to clarify the position inasmuch as, the respondent authorities in their defence has taken a stand of payment of certain amount as compensatory allowance. He has clarified that such compensatory allowance is only in pursuance of the CAMPA Scheme and not as compensation for the community or the individual who had owned the land. 12. The Senior Counsel accordingly submits that appropriate directions may be issued whereby adequate compensation in accordance with law be paid to the concerned villagers. 13. Shri N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that the stand of the State has been put on record in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 25.02.2025. He has clearly submitted that in case of USF land, the ownership remains with the community and therefore, the claim made in the present writ petition appears to be justified. He has submitted in clear terms that the concerned villagers would be entitled for compensation for 96.977 Hectare of USF Land. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the objective of the Policy of 2008 which reads as follows: “The basic objectives that should govern the State Policy on Rehabilitation of project affected families, acquisition of immovable property, private land including agriculture and horticulture land and compensation against diversion of forest are especially USF are over which community enjoyed rights of land use and various privileges to meet their Bonafide requirements of forest produce area as follows:- (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 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 compensate adequately 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”. 14. 14. Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the facts projected are not admitted and it is not even clear as to from which date the area in question was taken over possession by the Assam Rifles. Though, he has admitted that sometime in 2004-2005, the land in question was handed over to the ITBP and the authorities had paid an amount of Rs.2,26,90,000/- in three instalments. The learned DSGI has, however, fairly submitted that the said amount is on the head of compensatory allowance but he submits that in absence of any clear classification as to whether the land in question was Reserved Forest or USF, the present claim would not be maintainable. He has also raised the issue of delay in approaching the Court. 15. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed on record have been carefully examined. 16. As per the facts projected, the area in question was initially in the possession of the Assam Rifles and subsequently, the possession was taken over by the ITBP. The aforesaid facts are substantiated by the replies to the RTI Act applications. In fact, the learned DSGI has also fairly admitted since the year, 2004-2005, the land in question is in possession of the ITBP. 17. It is clear from the materials on record that the ITBP is in possession of a total area of 145.41 Hectare which includes both Reserved Forest and USF. The communication dated 09.09.2024 which has been referred above, in clear terms has stated that out of the aforesaid area, 96.977 Hectare is USF which belongs to the community in question. The learned DSGI has stressed upon the aspect that compensation for the aforesaid area has already been paid to the tune of Rs.2,26,90,000/-. It is therefore required for this Court to see what is the nature of the compensation said to have been paid. 18. Shri Kato has, however, very fairly submitted that this is the compensatory allowance. The aforesaid aspect relates to the various directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to institute CAMPA and the said aspect has also been taken into consideration and incorporated in the Policy of 2008 of the State. 18. Shri Kato has, however, very fairly submitted that this is the compensatory allowance. The aforesaid aspect relates to the various directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to institute CAMPA and the said aspect has also been taken into consideration and incorporated in the Policy of 2008 of the State. The relevant provisions have already been extracted hereinabove and Regulation 6.3 is clearly on the aspect of such compensation. A payment of compensatory allowance is on different perspective altogether related to the conservation and preservation of forest and not related to the compensation for use of land belonging to a community or an individual. 19. It also appears from the record that out of 145.41 Hectare of land under the ITBP, 48.433 Hectare is Reserved Forest and the present lis is not connected to that land over which no individual or community can stake any claim. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the 96.977 Hectare of USF land which is under the illegal occupation of the ITBP. The prayer of the petitioner is that either the land is to be acquired by the ITBP on 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 community. 20. The stand of the State Government qua the claim of the petitioner is also required to be taken into consideration. As mentioned above, the learned Addl. Advocate General of the State had clearly submitted that the entitlement for compensation for the area of 96.977 Hectare appears to be genuine. In this regard, the averments made by the State in its affidavit dated 25.02.2025, more specifically in Paragraph-7 are required to be considered, which read as follows: “7…That as regard to the statements made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, the humble deponent begs to state that the circular dated 01.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Govt. of AP was in pursuance of the Cabinet Decision dated 10.05.2018 taken on community/USF land, when such lands are diverted and acquired for public purpose. As per the said circular and the cabinet decision the indigenous tribe of Arunachal Pradesh has inalienable rights over the land and its resources. of AP was in pursuance of the Cabinet Decision dated 10.05.2018 taken on community/USF land, when such lands are diverted and acquired for public purpose. As per the said circular and the cabinet decision the indigenous tribe of Arunachal Pradesh has inalienable rights over the land and its resources. When such lands are diverted for public purpose, the indigenous tribals must be adequately compensated for the extinguishment of customary rights and privileges over such lands. The deponent also states that Unclassed State Forest (USF) is not notified by the Government and hence the ownership belongs to local populace and the indigenous tribes of Arunachal Pradesh has inalienable rights over it and a person cannot be dispossessed of his lands except by procedures established by law. The deponent further states that Chapter IX of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2008 (R&R Policy, 2008) deals with matter when a USF land is diverted for development and other projects and compensations thereof to be paid. As per Chapter IX, Paragraph 9 (1) (i) the payment is termed as compensation for loss of community rights of collection of forest produce and traditional land use of USF. Under Paragraph 9 (1) (i) the Deputy commissioner being Forest Settlement Officer shall workout the compensation for the loss of rights and privileges of the tribal people to collect and use forest produce from USF @Rs.1,56,000/- per Hectare for USF area and Rs.78,000/- per Hectare for Reserved Forest (if any rights and privileges are granted by notification constituting Reserve Forest). Further, under Paragraph 9 (1) (iii) in case of diversion of USF land use @25% of NPV paid to CAMPA as determined by Government of India from time to time”. 21 . From the pleadings exchanged and the documents placed on record, it would be clear that an area of 96.977 Hectare of USF which belongs to the community in question is in the possession of ITBP presently. This Court has also come to a conclusion that such possession is without any acquisition proceeding and no rents or any nature of compensation have been paid to the community. As already held above, the amount of Rs.2,26,90,000/- said to have been paid by the ITBP is only towards CAMPA which is primarily for afforestation activities and cannot be considered to be compensation for any acquisition proceeding. As already held above, the amount of Rs.2,26,90,000/- said to have been paid by the ITBP is only towards CAMPA which is primarily for afforestation activities and cannot be considered to be compensation for any acquisition proceeding. In fact it is an admitted position that there is no acquisition proceeding at all. 22 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi-vs-State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 has held that th though the right to property is not a fundamental right after the 44 amendment of the Constitution in the year 1978, such right is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. 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. 23 . In this connection, it may be gainful to refer the judgment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: “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. 24. This Court has also noted that the version of the State Government is not consistent with the Central Government. 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 reported in (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 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. 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”. 25 . In the instant case, the possession of the ITBP over the land in question is not in dispute and the said possession clearly appears to be illegal. 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 ITBP, 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. In case, the land in question is considered to be required for a temporary period, the rent 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. 26. It is accordingly directed that an exercise be made by the ITBP 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. 26. It is accordingly directed that an exercise be made by the ITBP 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 ITBP is of the opinion that such possession may not be of 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 ITBP is in possession and thereafter, the said rent be paid to the villagers/ Community 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 villagers/community in accordance with law. 27. 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 ITBP be done within a period of 1 (one) month from today and thereafter, consequential steps be taken in accordance with law. 28. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the manner indicated above 29. Cost made easy.