Page No.# 1/14 GAHC040013122025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/357/2025 Janta Umpey and 23 Ors Son of Shri Woche Umpey, permanent resident of Maliney Circle Office Etalin, PO and PS Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Jidu Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Late Gane Tacho present resident of Prabaya Village Po and PS Anini Diobang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Jongo Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Late Suti Tacho present resident of Kongo Village Po and PS Anini Diobang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Smti Lama Mihu Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Yengo Mihu present resident of Boo Village Po and PS Anini Diobang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Miss Emmi Umpey Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Woche Umpey Page No.# 2/14 present resident of Maliney Circle Office Etalin PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Moprapo Mepo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Guti Mepo present resident of Cheta-I Village Po and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Chundu Mepo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lekene Mepo present resident of Ezengo Village Po and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Darto Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Remba Mihu present resident of Maliney Circle Office Etalin PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Pipi Umpey Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Woche Umpey present resident of Maliney Circle Office Etalin PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Oyo Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Yido Mihu present resident of Alineh Vilalge PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Page No.# 3/14 Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Imran Umpey Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Woche Umpey present resident of Maliney Circle Office Etalin PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Naye Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Mukene Mihu present resident of Kopchiline Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Hati Miwu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tome Mihu present resident of New Anini PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Wanchu Miwu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tome Mihu present resident of New Anini PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Rajim Miwu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tome Miwu present resident of Kongo Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 16: Bango Tacho Page No.# 4/14 Age: Occupation : Son of Late Suti Tacho present resident of Kongo Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Smti Thali Tacho Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Suti Tacho present resident of Prabaya Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 18: Inza Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Chando Mihu present resident of Kongo Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Jeebie Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jidu Tacho present resident of Prabaya Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 20: Embo Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Oyo Mihu present resident of Alineh Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 21: Eha Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jongo Tacho Page No.# 5/14 present resident of Kongo Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 22: Debie Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jidu Tacho present resident of Prabaya Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 23: Echie Tacho Age: Occupation : Son of Late Khumba Tacho present resident of Prabaya Village PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 24: Geta Mihu Age: Occupation : Son of Late Mukene Mihu present resident of New Anini PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 9 Ors through the Commissioner, Land Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Authority Age: 0 Occupation : Anini Page No.# 6/14 Govt of Arunachal Pradesh District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The DLRSO Age: 0 Occupation : Land Department Anini Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Paro Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Misuti Mano resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Eko Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Atege Mano resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Sanja Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Pani Manoi resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Loroti Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Pakha Mano resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Page No.# 7/14 Arunachal Pradesh. 9:Lata Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Soro Mano resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Timu Mano Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Muke Mano resident of Akobe Circle Office Mipi PO and PS Anini Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Bamang Tatung,Tao Tarin,Risso Aking,Migo Laye,Gyamar Jeevan,Taying Nega Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Eddie Payeng,Kamal Saxena BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 10. 2. It appears from the record that on 25.02.2026, the learned Additional Page No.# 8/14 Advocate General representing the State respondents as well as the learned senior counsel representing the private respondents raised the issue of maintainability of this instant writ petition. It also appears that the state respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, have also raised preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the present petitioners, before approaching this Court, had approached the LARR Authority, i.e., the Court of learned District Judge East Sessions Division Tezu, Lohit District (A.P) by filing an application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as RFCLARR Act, 2013) praying for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Anini to draw a reference in terms of Section 65 of the said Act. 4. He further submits that accordingly, by order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tezu, Lohit district (hereinafter referred to as LARR Authority) in Civil Reference Case No. 03(DV)/2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, was directed to draw a reference in terms of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the RFCLARR Page No.# 9/14 Act, 2013. Accordingly, on 9th June, 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Dibang Valley District, Anini has drawn up a reference under Section 65 of the said Act. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the present private respondents appeared before the LARR Authority, on 01.07.2025, and filed an application before the said authority raising the issue of maintainability of the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, on the ground of limitations and the locus standi of the present petitioners to seek reference under Section 64 of the RFCLARR Act, 2013. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid application filed by the present private respondents, the Civil Misc. Case No. 23(DV)/2025 was registered and notices were issued to other side. He has also submitted that 15 days’ time was granted to the present petitioners, in the said misc. case, to file written objection and the next date of hearing was fixed on 11.08.2025. He further submits that the proceeding of Reference Case No. 3(DV)/2025 was also stayed, during the pendency of the Civil Misc. Case No. 23 (DV)/2025, by the LARR Authority by its order dated 01.07.2025. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that when the LARR Authority was seized with the matter regarding the Page No.# 10/14 maintainability of the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, in the Civil Misc. Case No. 23(DV)/2025, and when an opportunity was granted to the present petitioners to file written objection, the present writ petitioner could have raised any objection regarding the plea of maintainability raised by the private respondents before the LARR Authority, however, instead of doing so, they have rushed to this Court seeking invocation of writ jurisdiction which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents is uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents further submits that as to whether the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner after the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the LARR Authority was in terms of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the RFCLARR Act, 2013 or not, could have been well agitated by the present writ petitioners before the LARR Authority instead of raising the said issued before this Court. 9. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 has also raised the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition and has adopted the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the private respondents. 10. On the other hand, Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners has Page No.# 11/14 submitted that in the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the referral order made under Section 65 of the Act of 2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, inasmuch as in the said referral order, the Deputy Commissioner has made certain observations, which were not mandated under Section 65 of the RFCLARR Act, 2013. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the observations made in the referral order by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, to the effect that Ampo Village does not fall under the land which has been acquired for Etalin Hydro Electric Project (3097 MW) is un called for and if it is allowed to remain, it may have a bearing on the LARR Authority while considering the question of maintainability raised by the private respondents before it. 12. He also submits that, the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, could not have finally adjudicated upon the title of the present petitioners and make observation to that effect in the referral order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while making reference to the LARR Authority under Section 65, the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, has also exceeded his jurisdiction in stating in the referral order that the claim made by the present petitioners under Section 64 of the RFCLARR Act, 2013 is not maintainable. Page No.# 12/14 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the materials available on record. 14. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners herein are mainly aggrieved with the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, in the last paragraph of the referral order dated 09.06.2025, by which the reference under Section 65 was made to the LARR Authority. It also appears that the plea of the maintainability of the aforesaid reference proceeding (Reference Case No. 3(DV)/2025) has already been raised by the present private respondents before the LARR Authority by filing an application and on the basis of the said application a Civil Misc. Case No. 23(DV)/2025 has also been registered. 15. It also appears that the said Misc. Case (Misc. Case No. 23(DV)/2025) was fixed for hearing on 11.08.2025 and the present petitioners were afforded opportunity to raise objection by filing reply to the petition filed by the present respondents. However, instead of doing the same before the LARR Authority, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 06.08.2025 and thereafter, by order dated 07.08.2025, this Court had stayed the entire proceeding of Civil Reference Case No. 3(DV)/2025 as well as Civil Misc. Case No. 23(DV)/2025. Page No.# 13/14 16. On perusal of the materials available on record and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides, it appears that the Referral Order under Section 65 of the Act, 2013 was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Dibang Valley District, Anini in pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the LARR Authority in Civil Reference No. 3 (DV)/2025. It also appears that though in the Referral Order dated 09.06.2025, Deputy Commissioner has made certain observation regarding maintainability of the reference under Section 64 by the present petitioners. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said observations are not binding on the LARR Authority and it may or may not take the same into consideration while deciding the question of maintainability raised by the present respondents. It also appears that the present petitioners could have raised any such issue, which they have raised in the instant writ petition before the LARR Authority by filing written objection against the petition filed by the present respondents wherein the question of maintainability has been raised. 17. This court is of the considered opinion that , since the LARR Authority has not yet decided the question of maintainability raised by the present private respondents and since the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, in the last paragraph of the referral order is not binding on the LARR Page No.# 14/14 Authority, the petitioners have failed to justify that they have any cause of action to approach this Court, as this stage, by invoking its writ jurisdiction. More so, when an alternative forum, i.e., the LARR Authority is available to the petitioners for agitating the issues raised in this writ petition. 18. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are relegated to the LARR Authority. They may, by filing written objection, against the plea of maintainability raised by the private respondents, before the LARR Authority, raise the issues which are pleaded by them in the instant writ petition. 19. The LARR Authority is directed to decide the question of maintainability of the reference made to it by the Deputy Commissioner, Anini, in Civil Misc. Case No.23(DV)/2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of passing of this order. 20. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant