Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040012472024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/423/2024 Ciachin Mai and 15 Ors resident of Village Taflagam, Chaglagam, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Mapikam Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglogam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nihali Mai Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Jaflolum Mai Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Rathalum Mai Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/11 6: Duhilum Taflap Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Smti Jaijusai Taflap Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Beglelum Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Katemaro Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Kinamso Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Smti Kimilu Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Maku Taflap Age: Occupation : resident of Village Taflagam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/11 12: Gorotho Tabronyu Age: Occupation : resident of Village Abhugam Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Sonamso Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Smti Gohiya Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Smti Palisai Tega Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tegamma Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 16: Sinsolum Awailiang Age: Occupation : resident of Village Tablaiko Chaglagam Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 ors represented by the Commissioner, Land Management Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 4/11 Anjaw District Hawai Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Ministry of Defence Room No.234 South block New Delhi- 1 4:The Director General Age: 0 Occupation : Border Roads Organization Master Banwar 168 Lal Tanwar Road New Delhi 10 5:The Commanding Officer Age: 0 Occupation : 116 RCC (GREF) 116 Road Const. Coy (GREF) Pin 930116 C/o 99 APO Hayuliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : H K Jamoh, Tony Pertin,Eddie Payeng Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. AG for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. M. Kato, Page No.# 5/11 learned DSGI for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Case of the petitioners: 2) In brief, the case of the petitioners is as follows: - a. That for the construction of the proposed defence road from Chaglogam to Kapapu was undertaken in two separate packages. One package was for the area from 0.00 km to 6.5 km, referred to as Package-1 to Rocham point. The second package was from 6.5 km to 16 km, referred to as Package-2. The subject matter of this writ petition is regarding assessment of compensation of land of the petitioners, falling within Package-1 (i.e. 0,00 km to 6.5km), that were acquired by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh under the provisions of Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/ Sadiya Frontier Track Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Regulation for brevity). b. Vide order dated 24.12.2018, a Three-Member Board was constituted for valuing the land including horticultural crops standing thereon, which was being acquired. The said Committee, by its Joint Survey and Property Assessment Report/ Board Proceeding dated 06.03.2020, highlighted its opinion to the effect that horticulture fields of 186 (one hundred eighty six) beneficiaries were newly created for claiming compensation and estimated bills for Rs.2.14 Crore in respect of such beneficiaries was separately enclosed and (a) as per the details of valuation as per data collected from the field in department wise including new cultivation was assessed at Rs.35,94,01,935/- (Rupees Thirty five crore ninety four lakh one thousand nine hundred thirty five Page No.# 6/11 only); and (b) as per the details of valuation as per data collected from the field in department wise excluding new cultivation was assessed at Rs.33,79,36,210/- (Rupees Thirty three crore seventy nine lakh thirty six thousand two hundred ten only). c. Thereafter, a public notice dated 26.10.2020, was issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, fixing 03.11.2020, at 10.00 am as date and time fixed for scrutinizing claims and objections in connection with the said Road Package-1. d. The petitioners have not disclosed in this writ petition as to whether or not the compensation, as assessed by the competent authorities pursuant to public hearing called on 26.10.2020 were disbursed to the affected persons. e. It is projected that the rate of cardamom plants were fixed by the Government at Rs.2,000/- per clump/plant and therefore, as the authorities had previously calculated and paid compensation for cardamom plant at the rate of Rs.900/- per clump/plant, the Circle Officer, For Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, Hayuliang, forwarded a Rectified Joint Verification Report dated 14.09.2022, to the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, amongst others, on account of left out cardamom clumps/ plants, civil structure items and land value, amounting to Rs.50,21,463/- (Rupees Fifty lakh twenty one thousand four hundred sixty three only). Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District, vide letter dated 01.11.2023, submitted a bill for a sum of Rs.50,21,463/- (Rupees Fifty lakh twenty one thousand four hundred sixty three only) to the Officer Commanding, 116 Road Page No.# 7/11 Construction Company, GREF, Hayuliang. f. As left out compensation was not paid, the petitioners had submitted a joint representation dated 13.08.2024 before the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District. g. As the left-out compensation was not paid, the present writ petition was filed. Submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners: 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioners had come to learn from the orders passed by this Court in (i) W.P.(C) No. 175(AP)/2022- Manakso Taflap & Ors. V. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., (ii) W.A. No. 24/2022 – State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Manakso Taflap & Ors., as well as (iii) from order passed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. 4873/2023, that to some other land affected persons, the respondents had paid value of cardamom clumps/ plants at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for fruit bearing plants and Rs.1,000/- for non-fruit bearing plants. 4) It was submitted that neither the petitioners were privy to the calculation of compensation by the authorities and nor the representatives of the land affected families were made a part of such determination. Moreover, it was submitted that solatium of amount equal to compensation and interest as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act for brevity). Therefore, only on coming to know that the petitioners were unfairly deprived of fair compensation, they have filed this writ petition as the actions on part of the respondent authorities were arbitrary and discriminatory Page No.# 8/11 and therefore, illegal. 5) It was submitted that the learned Addl. A.G. may take a plea that the petitioners had accepted compensation amount without any protest and owing to judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11884-11888 of 2025 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 9585-9589 of 2023] – The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Mihin Laling & Ors., decided on 16.09.2025, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief. In the said context, it was submitted that the order of the Supreme Court of India was passed on 16.09.2025, but the representation of the petitioner was submitted on 13.08.2024, which was pending and not disposed of and therefore, as the issue was pending, the petitioners cannot be deprived of fair compensation. Stand of the State respondents: 6) The learned Addl. Advocate General for the State had submitted that the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 2017 under the 1947 Regulation, where there was no provision for solatium and interest and not under 2013 Act. It was submitted that vide notification dated 26.11.2011, the rates of big cardamom clumps/ plants between 8 to 25 years was fixed at Rs.120/- each, but no rate was fixed for cardamom plants of under 8 years in respect of Anjaw District and therefore, the Board, in its proceeding dated 08.03.2021, fixed the rate of large cardamon plant of less than 8 years as hereinafter provided, viz., (i) rate per sucker/seedling – Rs.15/-; (ii) 12 suckers per clump upto one year @ Rs.15/- = Rs.160/-; (iii) 24 suckers per clump in 2nd year @ Rs.15/- = Rs.360/-; (iv) 36 suckers per clump in 3rd year @ Rs.15/- = Rs.540/-; and (v) 60 suckers per clump in between 4 years and above @ Rs.15/- = Rs.900/-. Therefore, it was submitted that the rate of fruit bearing Page No.# 9/11 large cardamom clump/plant at Rs.2,000/- and rate of Rs.1,000/- for non-fruit bearing large cardamon clumps/ plants was not applicable for Anjaw District. 7) It was submitted that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mihin Laling & Ors. (supra), had held in paragraph 28 that in respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. Accordingly, it was submitted that the re-assessment of the compensation cannot be opened now. 8) No submission was made by the learned DSGI. 9) Perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 and reply affidavit filed by the petitioners. 10) It is seen that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mihin Laling & Ors. (supra), had affirmed the approach of this Court that reasonable compensation under Section 10 of 1947 Act must be harmonised with the prevailing legislative standards of the time and solatium and interest were integral components of fairness. However, in paragraph 28 it was ordered that in respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. 11) Thus, there is a clear mandate of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihin Laling & Ors. (supra), that the re- assessment of the compensation cannot be opened after the concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed. 12) In this case, the petitioners have not stated anywhere in the writ petition as to the date when they had been paid the land acquisition Page No.# 10/11 compensation and therefore, the petitioners are found to have suppressed relevant material facts from this Court and therefore, the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. 13) It appears from the copy of order dated 15.05.2024, passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of SLP(C) No. 4873/2023 - State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Manakso Taflap & Ors. (supra) that the amount payable to the land losers shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and shall be disbursed within four weeks thereafter. Thus, in all probability, the compensation is presumed to have been disbursed to the petitioners before they had submitted their representation dated 13.08.2024, on which date the petitioners had submitted their representation for re-visiting assessment of compensation. The compensation was received and accepted by the petitioners without any demur. 14) Thus, it is not disputed at the Bar that only after receiving the payment of compensation, the petitioners had submitted their representation on 13.08.2024, referred hereinbefore. The present writ petition has been filed claiming re-calculating compensation on account of value of big cardamom clumps/plaints; 100% solatium; and interest on compensation. 15) Therefore, in light of the directions contained in paragraph 28 of the order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihin Laling & Ors. (supra), as in this case, the computation/ determination of land acquisition compensation acceptance of compensation; and disbursement of compensation amount had all already happened prior to the passing of the order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihin Laling & Ors. (supra), this Court would be bound by the said Page No.# 11/11 order dated 16.09.2025, whereby it was clearly laid down that the re- assessment of the compensation cannot be opened after the concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed. 16) In the present case in hand, no issue relating to acquisition, acceptance and disbursement of compensation was pending before any authority and thus, those issues were already brought to its logical conclusion. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that only after they became aware of judicial determinations, where higher value was computed for cardamon clumps/ plants that the petitioners had submitted representation dated 13.08.2024. 17) It may be mentioned that in this regard, the Court finds support from the order dated 19.11.2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of W.P.(C) 475(AP)/2022- Neelam Sanjoy v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. 18) As a result of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed on merit as well as the ground of suppression of material fact referred to hereinbefore. 19) Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant