LAMA TENZIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three nos. of petitioners have joined together in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:

(2.) As per the facts projected, there was a land acquisition proceeding for construction of a road from Shungatser to Sulula under the Zemithang Circle of Tawang District. For the said purpose, the respondent authorities had issued a preliminary notification dtd. 3/11/2021 for acquisition of land measuring 3,38,400 Sq. Mtrs. under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). In furtherance of the said objective, a Board of four members was constituted, which took a decision to adopt the multiplication factor for the acquisition as 1.2. Such factor was taken in accordance with the notification dtd. 5/7/2016 issued by the Government. The estimate was accordingly prepared for compensation of Rs.13,21,79,040.00 (Rupee Thirteen Crore Twenty-One Lakh Seventy-Nine Thousand and Forty) only, by taking 1.2 as the multiplication factor. There were other charges also included in the estimate. However, without the knowledge of the petitioners, the new incumbent who had joined as the Deputy Commissioner of the District revised the compensation to Rs.11,11,98,240.00 (Rupees Eleven Crore Eleven Lakh Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Forty) only. The impugned revised compensation was prepared by taking into account the multiplication factor as 1 instead of 1.2, which according to the petitioners is in complete violation of the earlier decision of the Board taken as per the notification dtd. 5/7/2016. It also transpires that such action was taken as per the verbal direction of the Secretary (Land Management) Department, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners claim that because of the impugned decision, rightful compensation has been denied to them, and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Shri B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the Union of India and Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.