Page No.# 1/14 GAHC040002872025 2025:GAU-AP:510-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/10/2025 1:Arunachal Primitive Tribal Forest Dwellers Forum and 4 Ors through Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Shri Techi Hemu Son of Shri Sotek Tachang a permanent resident of Niti Darlong Po and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at B Sector near Raj Bhawan Po and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nyanya Gollo Age: 38 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Taniyang Gollo Po and PS Itanagar B Sector Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Thomas Nabam Age: 34 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Nama Nabum resident of Mobuso-I PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/14 4: Bampu Nabam Age: 44 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Tarum Nabam permanent resident of Village Sochung PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Chuma Nabam Age: 51 Occupation : Address:permanent resident of Village Juli Village PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Chimi Village PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Principal Secretary cum Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Power Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. Page No.# 3/14 5:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Tribal Affairs Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 6:The Chief Executive Officer/ Sr Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Power Grid Corporations of India Ltd Itanagar. 7:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : N Rama Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 6 Ors: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER For the appellants : Mr. A. Kashyap, Advocate. For respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 : Mr. N. Ratan, Addl. A.G. : Mr. L. Perme, standing counsel. For respondent No.6 : Mr. N. Khera. Date of hearing : 09.04.2025, 10.04.2025. Date of judgment : 24.04.2025. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Page No.# 4/14 (Y. Longkumer, J) Heard Mr. A. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 7 assisted by Mr. L. Perme, learned standing counsel for the power Department and Mr. N. Khera, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6. 2) By filing these two Intra-Court appeals, the appellants have assailed the common judgment and order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 32(AP)/2024and W.P.(C) No. 78(AP)/2024, thereby dismissing the said two writ petitions. 3) The case of the appellants, in the writ petition, in brief, are as follows: - a. The appellants claim to have Land Possession Certificates in respect of their respective land holding. The Power Grid Corporation of India has proposed project to draw-up high-tension power lines, a part of which traverses through Reserve Forest area, where the petitioners claim to have two-fold rights over the subject matter Reserve Forest land, viz., (a) as land owners and possessors, and (b) also under the Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006 Act” for brevity. For the said project, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was required to provide right of way. b. The Commissioner of Power, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, had issued a notification dated 29.08.2019, regarding rates of payment of Page No.# 5/14 compensation towards damages in regard to Right of Way in accordance with the guidelines dated 15.10.2015, issued by the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. It was stated therein that the same was for “damages” as stipulated in Section 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2013, read with Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which will be in addition to the compensation towards normal crop and tree damages. The said compensation was payable only in respect of transmission lines supported by tower base of 66 KV and above and not for sub-transmission and distribution lines below 66 KV. c. The Department of Power, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had issued a notification dated 31.08.2023, titled, “Special Ex-gratia Relief Package towards Right of Way for 132 K.V. Transmission Lines passing through Reserved Forests under the Comprehensive Scheme for Strengthening of Transmission and Distribution System in Arunachal Pradesh Policy” (hereinafter referred as “2013 Ex-gratia Policy” for short). d. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District, Lemmi had constituted a “Final Joint Verification -cum- Recommendation Board” for “payment of diminution cost of land and properties” of land affected areas under Passa Valley and Pijerang Circles, for which publication was made vide Gazette notification dated 18.07.2023 and in newspaper dated 10.08.2023.A circular dated 21.12.2023 was issued by the Circle Officer, Passa Valley, requiring the genuine land affected owners to submit documents for final verification. e. The grievance expressed by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the authorities want to grant ex-gratia compensation and/or relief Page No.# 6/14 package to persons who do not have any rights, which is bad in law and is stated that it is against Cabinet Decision held on 18.07.2023, to uphold the 2006 Act. f. The petitioners have pleaded several reasons to express their apprehension that the funds provided by the Central Govt. would be grossly mis-utilized and misapplied. g. Accordingly, the petitioners had prayed as under: - i. For setting aside and quashing the notice dated 22.06.2020/31.08.2023; ii. Directing the respondent authorities to pay land compensation as per the provisions of law, including, (a) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; (b) Electricity Act, 2003; (c) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; and (d) 2006 Act. iii. To direct the respondent authorities to take cognizance of the LPC applications pending with the State Administration and invite claims and objections in pursuance to laws related to acquisition of land and compute applicable compensation to rightful tribal citizens in affected areas. 4) The respondents had contested the writ petition. 5) After hearing all sides, the writ petitions were dismissed. It may be mentioned that, amongst others, the relevant conclusions of the learned Single Judge, can briefly be summarised as follows:- Page No.# 7/14 a. That in the impugned notification, there is a reference to the notification dated 02.09.2019, by which the State Government had adopted the rates of payment of compensation towards damages with regard to right of way in terms of the guidelines dated 18.10.2015, of the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. b. It was also held that these guidelines of payment methodology of compensation towards damages as stipulated in Section 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, shall be in addition to the compensation towards normal crop and tree damages. c. It was also held that compensation under Section 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003read with section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 can be given only to the affected land owners. Thus, it was also held that the impugned notification addressed those tribal population within the reserved forest area who are considered not entitled to any benefits for not being land owners, but who have certain rights under Section 3 of the 2006 Act. d. Accordingly, the impugned notification was held to be justified by holding that it can appropriately be terms as a gesture of goodwill to pay special ex-gratia relief package. e. The learned Single Judge also took note of rate of compensation provided for in the impugned notification dated 31.08.2023, to be computed at the rate of 42.5% of the land value for the tower-base area and 7.5% of the land value towards diminution of the value of the land in the width of right of way corridor due to paying of transmission Page No.# 8/14 lines which would be determined by the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority so empowered by the State Government, based on District Rate/ Circle Rate/ Stamp Rate to those persons who do not have any right under the Electricity Act, and the Indian Telegraph Act but have right under the 2006 Act within the Reserved Forest Area. f. Resultantly, it was held that there are no grounds for setting aside the impugned notification dated 31.08.2023. g. It was also held that the appellants have not established that they have valid Land Possession Certificates (LPCs for short) within the reserved forest area, which is clear from their prayer to take cognizance of the LPC applications pending with the State Administration and therefore, it was held that claims for consideration of any compensation cannot be considered at this stage. However, it was observed that in the interest of justice the concerned respondent authorities should dispose of any such pending applications expeditiously. h. Resultantly, both the writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment. 6) Bereft of details, in this appeal, the grounds of appeal are summarised as follows: - a. The learned Judge had committed error of fact and law. b. The impugned judgment dated 28.01.2025 was not in consonance with notification dated 31.08.2023, Electricity Act, Indian Telegraph Act, and 2006 Act, and unfair and unreasonable. Page No.# 9/14 c. Impugned notification considered only the Electricity Act which precedes the 2006 Act, envisaging compensation to persons who were not entitled to any benefit, when there is no statute to pay ex-gratia compensation. d. The learned Judge had failed to consider that the appellants were not given an opportunity of hearing and thus, the notification took away the right of the forest dwellers. e. The learned Judge had failed to consider that the petitioners had valid LPCs and that their land were affected land and thus, the respondent authorities had arbitrarily denied compensation. f. The learned Judge failed to consider that due to political interference, compensation was denied to the appellants, whereas, the Circle Officer had issued circular dated 21.12.2023, seeking submission of documents from genuine land affected owners for final identification. g. The learned Judge failed to consider that the impugned notification seems to address fictional and non-existent persons having no rights. h. The learned Judge failed to consider that the Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2023 was ignored. i. For that in any view of the matter, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Addl. Advocate General, and the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and counsel Page No.# 10/14 for respondent nos. 7 were heard for considerable time for two consecutive days. The matters were heard on the basis of the record of W.A. No. 10(AP)/2025 as the lead case. 8) We have considered the submissions as well as the materials available on record. 9) The first issue is whether or not the appellants are forest dwellers within the Reserved Forest area. In this aspect the appellants miserably fail. In the cause-title of the writ petition and this memo of appeal, none of the appellants have disclosed that their address in any forest area. The appellants have neither pleaded that they are members of forest dwelling scheduled tribes as defined under section 2(c) of the 2006 Act, nor it is pleaded that their villages have been established inside forests by the forests department as envisaged under section 2(f) of the 2006 Act. It is also not the pleaded case that the appellants reside in a habitat as defined under section 2(h) of the 2006 Act. The memo of appeal contains no map of the village, showing their village to be inside the reserved forest. The map available, only shows the tower site locations. 10) Moreover, the LPCs purportedly held by some of the appellants and/or applied for by some of the appellants, totally demolishes the claim of the appellants of having any forest rights altogether because the learned Addl. Advocate General has been able to show from the Office Memorandum No. LR- 31/84, dated 19th December, 1988 on the subject of LPC, procedure thereof, that the first requirement for applying for a LPC is that along with the application, the applicant must mandatorily provide a “certificate from the forest department mentioning that the land in question does not fall under reserved Page No.# 11/14 forest area.” Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Section 119, Illustration (e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Section 114, Illustration (e) of the erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872] that all official works have been regularly performed, it must be presumed that the fact that the appellants are either holding LPCs, and/or they have applied for LPC, it has to be presumed that the land which are held by the appellants are non-reserved forest land. 11) The aforesaid fact not only justifies cancellation of LPCs in light of judgment and order dated 07.04.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 20(AP)/2009, but also runs counter to the directions contained in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2025, impugned in this appeal. If the requirement of Office Memorandum No. LR-31/84, dated 19th December, 1988 on the subject of LPC, procedure thereof, is that for applying for a LPC is that along with the application, the applicant must mandatorily provide a “certificate from the forest department mentioning that the land in question does not fall under reserved forest area”, the Court is compelled to hold that the directions contained in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2025, to the authorities to dispose of the applications for LPCs cannot be considered in the affirmative if the land claimed by the appellants is within the reserved forest. Thus, while disposing of the LPC applications, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to scrupulously follow Office Memorandum No. LR-31/84, dated 19th December, 1988, issued by the Secretary (Revenue and Settlement), Land Record Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, if condition no. (A)(I) thereof is not withdrawn and/or amended by now. 12) Interestingly, the specific pleading in paragraph 6 of the writ Page No.# 12/14 petition of the appellants is that two of the appellants, namely, Sri Techi Hemu and Sri Hare Tana were issued LPCs in the year 2010 and 2014 in accordance with the Forest Act, 2006. Such an act does not exist because there is Forest Act, 1927, under which there is no provision to issue Land Possession Certificate (LPC). As mentioned herein before, LPCs are issued under hereinbefore referred Office Memorandum No. LR-31/84 dated 19th December, 1988. It may be stated that on a perusal of the LPC dated 2010, the name of the LPC holder is shown as Vijay Nabom, and not Techi Hemu. 13) At page-339 of the memo of appeal of W.A. No. 10(AP)/2025, a copy of the order dated 07.03.2024 is available, wherein it is mentioned that the Board shall identify the genuine land owners of Passa Valley and Pijerang circles and verify documents mentioned therein before releasing compensation. However, it is not the case of the appellants that their names were enlisted in respect of a definite and/or identifiable reserved forest area. 14) By virtue of the provisions of section 105 of the 2013 Act, the said Act does not apply to enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule to the 2013 Act, amongst others, includes Electricity Act, 2003.The Forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes is prescribed in Section 3 of the 2006 Act, which does not include land ownership right within reserved forest areas. Thus, it cannot be held that the State is not justified in issuing the impugned notification dated 31.08.2023, acknowledging the right of Scheduled Tribes forest dwellers to ex-gratia monetary compensation, if any of their rights available under section 3 of the 2006 Act, which does not include land ownership rights, is adversely affected by the drawing-up of power lines through reserved forest. Page No.# 13/14 15) Thus, the purpose of the impugned notification dated 31.08.2023, is to provide for ex-gratia compensation to such persons who have some rights in a reserved forest area. In order to claim such compensation, the appellants have not been able to establish that they dwell in area as envisaged under section 2(c) of the 2006 Act. 16) The Court is of the considered opinion that in light of the discussions above, it emerges that since the appellants have no legal basis to claim that they are forest dwellers, they cannot be considered for compensation in reserved forest area. Thus, no other issue or point was required to be gone into in this appeal. However, as the learned counsel for appellants have extensively made his submissions, the other points raised by him have also been discussed. 17) Therefore, none of the grounds of appeal is found sustainable to admit the appeal for hearing. The appellants are not found entitled to any relief in terms of the prayers made in the writ petitions. Resultantly, in the light of the discussions above, the challenge to the judgment and order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 32(AP)/2024, in common with W.P.(C) No. 78(AP)/2024, by which the said writ petitions were dismissed does not warrant any interference. 18) However, it is made clear that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment is clarified by observations made by the Court in paragraph 11 above. 19) Thus, the appeals fail and both the appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. Page No.# 14/14 20) However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant