CHERA TAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.294(AP)2024; WP (C) No.193(AP)2022; and WP(C) No. 174 (AP)2024 and Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 455 (AP) 2024. I have also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the Union of India respondents including the Airport Authority of India and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. The issues involved in all these four writ petitions being similar, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that their respective lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of establishing an Airport, and that their lands fall within Hollongi, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Although an appropriate notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued in the year 2013, but since no follow-up action was taken, the acquisition proceeding lapsed. Subsequently, with the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013"). The respondent authorities concerned have again initiated the process of land acquisition by issuing notifications under Ss. 11(1), 19 and 40 of the Act of 2013 on 11/1/2019, 18/1/2019 and 18/1/2019 respectively. Consequently, the petitioners were paid compensation, but without solatium. According to the petitioners, since award was not made in the true sense of the term, they could not file a reference under Sec. 64 of the Act of 2013 and, therefore, having no alternative they are before this Court by filing their respective writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no proper assessment of the market value of the petitioners' plots of land, as required under Sec. 26 of the Act of 2013, and further, the value of crops and assets attached to their land and buildings were not properly assessed as determined under Sec. 27 of the said Act. He further submits that Sec. 30 of the Act mandates payment of 100% solatium to the landowners whose land has been acquired, but the same also has not been paid. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in fact entitled to additional compensation of 75% of the total compensation to be determined under Sec. 27 of the Act, in terms of Sec. 40(5) thereof. Further, petitioners are also entitled to payment of interest in terms of Sec. 80 of the same Act. The learned counsel also submits that whereas, in the case of the acquisition of land for the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the Power Grid in the year 2015 and 2016 respectively, the lands were acquired at the market value of Rs.507.00 per. Sq. Mtr., and all that is due to the landowners under the provisions of the Act of 2013, as mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013, have been duly paid to them. However, in the case of the petitioners, a Committee was constituted which recommended payment of compensation at a rate which is much lower than what was paid to the landowners for acquisition of the land for the NDRF and the Power Grid. The learned counsel further submits that from the recommendation made by the constituted Committee, it can be seen that the land of the petitioners are situated adjacent to the land which was acquired for the NDRF and the Power Grid in Hollongi, and therefore, the market value of the land of the petitioners cannot be anything less than Rs.507.00 per Sq. Mtr.