Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040007812025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/148/2023 Takuso Mimi and 9 Ors. Age: 42 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Akepi Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ekome Mimi Age: 61 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. S. Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tusu Mimi Age: 57 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Lakhu Mimi Age: 55 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. U Mimi Page No.# 2/9 Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Gora Mimi Age: 48 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Chimbu Mimi Age: 46 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. K Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Lanu Meto Age: 46 Occupation : Address:W/o E. Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Epi Meto Age: 44 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. K. Meto Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Abang Mimi Age: 32 Occupation : Page No.# 3/9 Address:S/o Lt. M. Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Sikku Mimi Age: 41 Occupation : Address:S/o P. Mimi Permanent Resident of New Anaya Village PO Anini District Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Represented through the Secretary (Land Management) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh AP Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Address:(Department of Land Management) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Dibang Valley District Anini PO Anini Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary (Power) Ministry of Power Govt of India Shiram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg Page No.# 4/9 New Delhi 110001 5:The National Hydro Power Corporation Limited Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by nits Chairman and Managing Director having its registered office at NHPC Office Complex Sector 33 Faridabad Haryana 121003 ------------ Advocate for : Tayum Son Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for THE STATE OF AP and 4 Ors.: BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No.1, 2 and 3; Mr. T. Mehto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I., representing respondent No.4 as well as Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the land affected families of New Anaya Village under the Anini Administrative Centre of Dibang Valley District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent No. 5, i.e., the National Hydro Power Corporation Limited (for short, “NHPCL”), has embarked upon the construction of the Dibang Multipurpose Project after obtaining approval from the competent authorities. The grievance of the petitioners is that originally objections were invited from the affected persons in respect of the Page No.# 5/9 proposal to acquire land measuring 143.417 Ha, which includes the land under New Anaya Village Community. A preliminary notification was issued on 27.08.2013, followed by a final notification dated 06.10.2015. However, after approval from the competent authorities, the land measuring 97.596 Ha., covered under the final notification dated 06.10.2015 was de-notified vide notification dated 22.12.2016. The de-notification was issued in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said de- notification dated 22.12.2016 has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5. 3. Thereafter, by letter No. DVH/NHPC/SUR-2017 dated 03.04.2018, the District Horticulture Officer, Dibang Valley District, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, of the excessive difference in the area under horticulture plantation from the notified submergence area of NHPCL, wherein it has been mentioned that the concerned land is of Anaya Community land with the submergence area as per the NHPCL notification being 45.822 Ha., whereas the actual area (As per field survey during property survey) is 143.417 Ha., with the difference in area being (-) 97.596 Ha. Accordingly, the said authority had suggested, on the basis of the data analysis, that there is a need to revisit the reading of the geo-coordinates of the new Anaya community lands by NHPCL. 4. The further case of the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley District, had issued a notice dated 07.03.2022, requesting all stakeholders from the land affected families to inspect the compensation amount assessed for the Dibang Multipurpose Project during office hours on 08.03.2022. The grievance of the petitioners is that the NHPCL is not cooperating with the authorities in releasing the balance land acquisition Page No.# 6/9 compensation in respect of the excess land measuring 97.596 Ha. Accordingly, the petitioners claim balance compensation with 18% interest. Accordingly, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities, including the authorities of the NHPCL, to participate in the re-verification process of the New Anaya Village community land allegedly occupied by NHPCL in excess of the acquisition notification. The prayer is also to re-verify the area with the help of geo-coordinates to find out the actual area measuring 143.447 Ha., as mentioned by the District Horticultural Officer, Anini and to ascertain the impact of the Dibang Multipurpose Project with a further direction to dispose of all the representations submitted by the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State has submitted that, insofar as the 45.822 Ha., land is concerned, which has been acquired after de-notification, the owners of the said land, including the community right holders who have already received compensation, are not before this Court. However, the petitioners represent only those persons whose land is allegedly covered by 97.596 Ha., which has been de-notified and, therefore, does not fall within the land covered by the acquisition notification. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that the letter dated 03.04.2018, issued by the District Horticulture Officer does not certify that the difference of 97.596 Ha of land falls within the submergence area of the proposed dam, the height of which has been reduced by the competent authorities. It is further submitted that the District Horticulture Officer is not the competent authority to determine the correctness or otherwise of the land acquisition notification that has remained acquired after de-notification of a part of the acquired land measuring 97.596 Ha. It is Page No.# 7/9 submitted that this would mean that 97.596 Ha., of land could not be land under submergence. 7. In support of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has further submitted that, pursuant to the acquisition of 45.822 Ha., land, agreements have been entered into with the affected persons, and reliance is placed on some of these settlement agreements annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 5. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the competent authorities have recalculated the height of the dam and thereby reduced the land required for the project, only 45.822 Ha., of land has been acquired. Therefore, there is no requirement to consider any calculation of compensation in respect of the difference area of 97.596 Ha., which falls outside the scope of land acquisition, being a de-notified area. 8. Considered the materials available on record which includes the affidavit(s) filed by the respective respondents as well as the reply thereto by the petitioners and the additional affidavit filed by both sides, and also considered the submissions made at the Bar. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not show anything on record to indicate that the de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act was incorrect, false, fabricated, or was a manufactured document. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners have solely relied on the letter issued by the District Horticulture Officer to presume that they are entitled to compensation for the land measuring 97.596 Ha., that falls beyond the area of submergence in the Dibang Multipurpose Project. The said letter dated 03.04.2018 does not refer to the de-notification dated 22.12.2016 issued under Section 48 of the Land Page No.# 8/9 Acquisition Act, 1894, and no document has been placed on record to show that any authority competent to comment on the dam and the area of submergence has found that the actual area to come under submergence would not be 45.822 Ha but would be 97.596 Ha., as originally included. 10. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is misconceived, as prayer no. (a) made in the writ petition is structured on a presumption that the actual land under submergence would be 143.417 Ha., which is contrary to the land acquisition notification read together with the de-notification dated 22.12.2016. Therefore, to pass any order for re- verification of the area would amount to revisiting the assessment made by the competent authorities in calculating the submergence area and in excluding an area of land measuring 97.596 Ha., from the submergence area. Consequently, if the said land has not been acquired, there would be no necessity to make a re-verification of the land not under acquisition. 11. However, it is only in the event that any land in excess of 45.822 Ha., falls under the submergence area, being the land claimed to be of the Anaya Community that a cause of action would arise for the petitioners to agitate the issue of submergence in excess of the area notified. 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the de-notification dated 22.12.2016 was issued, wide publicity was not given and the petitioners were not notified of the same. Assuming that the said allegation is correct, still then, the area of submergence has been reduced by way of the said Government notification, and if the land of the petitioners has not been acquired, they would not be affected persons who would be aggrieved by the de-notification so as to hold that the de-notification was bad in law for Page No.# 9/9 not being widely circulated or specifically informed to the petitioners. 13. Be that as it may, as the said de-notification is not under challenge, the observation of the Court is not intended to be a final opinion on the same. Accordingly, it is left open to the petitioners to deal with the issue as the petitioners may be so advised. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed and the parties are directed to bear their own cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant