LEIKI KHANDU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions were filed on 18.4.12 and notice of motion was issued on 19.4.12 by separate orders returnable in 4 weeks calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Rule should not be issued as prayed for. While issuing the notice of motion by an interim order the Respondent No. 4 Deputy Commissioner and Respondent No. 5 Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dirang were directed not to disburse the compensation amount till returnable date, i.e. 12.6.12, The learned Govt. Advocate prayed for and was allowed 3 weeks further time for filing the counter.The State respondents filed no response till 17.7.12. However, the In-charge Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dirang Circle, submitted written instructions/ parawise comments in connection with W.P.(C) No. 154(AP)/2012 to the senior Govt. Advocate, who prayed for some more time to file counter affidavit. Considering the importance and urgency of the matter, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been taken up for hearing. The learned senior Govt. Advocate requested the court to take the parawise comments into consideration in disposing the matters.

(2.) Both these petitions involve similar facts and issues pertaining to evaluation of loss of landed and other properties of the affected people and payment of compensation. The question of irregularities in assessing the value of the properties and making overvaluation and undervaluation of the properties of the affected people have been raised and , therefore, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.H.Nabam, learned senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 7 and Mr. Muk Pertin, learned CGC for the respondents No. 8 and 9.