Page No.# 1/30 GAHC040002872025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/9/2025 Durga Tana and 98 Ors Son of Shri Tame Tana, resident of Seijosa, PO and PS Seijosa, Pakke Kessang District, Arunachal Pradesh 790103. 2: Smti Tumri Nabam Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Jarjo Nabam resident of Mobuso - I PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 3: Sunny Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of late Hope Tachag resident of Nyokum Lapang PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Tade Tana Age: Occupation : Son of Hare Tana resident of Nyokum Lapang PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/30 5: Abing Nampe Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kelong Nampe resident of Seijosa PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Rangka Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tadi Tok resident of Bali Basti PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Tamar Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lalik Bagang resident of Bali Basti PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Ram Leij Camdir Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tana Leij resident of Darlong PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Lucky Techi Tara Age: Occupation : Son of Raka Techi resident of Bali Basti PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Sara Tana Tara Age: Page No.# 3/30 Occupation : Son of Hare Tana Tara resident of Upper Seijosa PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Hare Tana Tara Age: Occupation : Son of Late Chantiang Tana Tara resident of Seijosa PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Rafe Dawe Age: Occupation : Son of Late Dacho Dawe resident of CHC Medical Colony Upper Seijosa PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Smti Mepi Nabum Age: Occupation : Wife of Rikum Tachang resident of Mobuso-I PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Bima Dolo Age: Occupation : Son of Kameng Dolo resident of Goloso PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Rinyam Dolo Age: Occupation : Son of Kameng Dolo Page No.# 4/30 resident of Goloso PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 16: Kameng Dolo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lagung Dolo resident of House No. 1 E Goloso PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Smti Maya Dolo Age: Occupation : Wife of Kameng Dolo House No.1E Village Goloso PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 18: Gunuk Dolo Age: Occupation : House No.1E Village Goloso PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Raju Welly Age: Occupation : Son of Raya Welly village Jolly PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 20: Saha Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Regi Nabam Villae Mobuso-II Page No.# 5/30 PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 21: Philip Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Kahi Tachang Village Mobuso II PO and PS Seijosa Distt. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 22: Heter Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt Rige Nabam Sejosa PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 23: Tajik Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Lt Tahang Tachang Village Mobuso II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 24: Simon Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Hola Tachang Vilage Mobuso II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 25: Taji Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt Pile Nabam Village Mobuso I PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 26: Tacha Nabam Age: Page No.# 6/30 Occupation : Son of Lt Rige Nabam Village Mobuso II PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 27: Bina Techi Tara Age: Occupation : Son of Sinku Techi resident of Village Khodaso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 28: Loyi Ngorang Age: Occupation : Son of Tapuk Ngorang Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 29: Hina Nabam Niya Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Talar Village Khodaso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 30: Sania Ngurang Age: Occupation : Son of Tada Ngurang Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 31: Rata Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Singku Techi Village. Khodaso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 32: Taro Ngurang Age: Occupation : Son of Tada Ngurang Page No.# 7/30 Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 33: Nana Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Kacha Nabam Village Suchung PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 34: Rudo Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Lt Hachang Techi Village Khodaso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 35: John Nabum Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tahang Nabam Village Keko PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 36: Nigla Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bagang Nabam Village Keko PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 37: Gumde Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Tajam Nabam ViIIage Taoso P.O and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 38: Tatung Techi Age: Occupation : Page No.# 8/30 Son of Late Tagab Techi Village Taoso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 39: Tabia Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tade Nabam Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 40: Aga Tasse Age: Occupation : Son of Late Takam Tasse Village Taoso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 41: Tamang Tana Age: Occupation : Son of Late Joy Tana Village Suchung PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 42: Babing Tana Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Joy Tana village Suchung PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 43: Tai Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tagum Nabam Village Alangtopte PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 44: Tahang Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bado Nabam Village Keko PO and PS Pakke kessang Page No.# 9/30 Arunachal Pradesh 45: Pade Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tapuk Nabam Village Keko PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 46: Nanu Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Tajik Techi Village Hote PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 47: Akash Ngorang Age: Occupation : Son of Late. Bida Ngorang Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 48: Baddo Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Sera Nabam Village Keko PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 49: Gachi Nabam Age: Occupation : years Son of Tai Nabam Village Suchung PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 50: Gopal Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nima Tok Village Palove PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 51: Boli nabam Age: Occupation : Page No.# 10/30 Son of Late Tagum Nabam Village Alangtopte PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 52: Deram Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Kaha Nabam Village Alangtopte PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 53: Kaha Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tagum Nabam Village Alangtopte PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 54: Taji Camdir Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nima Tok Village Palove PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 55: Ajay Camdir Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Karlum Tok Village Palove PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 56: Govind Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Techi Tuklo Village Rilloh PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 57: Aniya Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nera Techi Page No.# 11/30 Village Rilloh PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 58: Smti Yajang Nabam Age: Occupation : Wife of Taram Nabam Village Upper Bazar Line Pakke Kessang PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 59: Taha Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tabing Techi Village Upper Bazarline Pakke kessang PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 60: Tagi Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Hota Nabam Village Sychung PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 61: Norba Camdir Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nima Tok Village Palove PO AND PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh 62: Gella Camdir Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Rishung Tok Village Palove PO and PS Pakke kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 63: Pahi Tachi Tara Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bida Tachi Tara Resident of Moglung Village Pakke Kessang Page No.# 12/30 Arunachal Pradesh 64: Tayum Tok Age: Occupation : Son of Late Salo Tok permanent village Palov PO and PS Pakke Kessang and present address village Modle Village PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 65: Tadung Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Rasap Techi Permanent Add. Village Rilloh PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Present Add. Village Jollang PO and PS R.K Mission Arunachal Pradesh. 66: Tadap Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tai Nabam Permanent Present Add. Village Khodaso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Dist. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 67: Logo Tayam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Pare Tayam Permanent/ Present Add. Darlong PO and PS Seijosa Dist. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 68: Tapuk nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Tango Nabam Permanent/ Present Add. Village Taoso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Dist. Pakke Kessang Page No.# 13/30 Arunachal Pradesh. 69: Tagum nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Gumde Nabam Resident of Village Taoso Po Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 70: Gumde Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Tajam Nabam resident of Village Taoso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Dist. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 71: Tayam Tasse Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Tuglo Tasse resident of Taoso PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 72: Smti Yakap Nabam Age: Occupation : Wife of Tabin Nabam Permanent address Village Taoso Present Add. Near Post Office Itanagar Po Ps Itanagar District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh 73: Pali Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Gumde Nabam Permanent Address Village Taoso Po and Ps Pakke Kessang Page No.# 14/30 District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 74: Natung Tachang Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Hare Tachang Permanent Address Village Seramso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Present Add. Vill Upper Seijosa PO and PS Seijosa District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 75: Hungdi Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tango Nabam Permanent Add. Village Taoso Po Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 76: Hina Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Kecha Nabam resident of Village Suchung PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 77: Tai Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nera Nabam Resident of Village Suchung Po Ps Pakke Kessang Dist. Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 78: Tapung Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Tai Nabam Resident of Suchung Po Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Page No.# 15/30 Arunachal Pradesh. 79: Smti Mebing Nabam Age: Occupation : Wife of shri Tai Nabam resident of Village Suchung PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 80: Gumsum Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Nana Nabam Resident of Vilalge Suchung Po Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 81: Raja Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Nana Nabam Resident of Village Suchung Po Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 82: Niya Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Rongche Techi Resident of Pakke Kessang PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 83: Tugung Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Niya Nabam resident of Village Zeraso PO and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 84: Akia Tana Age: Occupation : Page No.# 16/30 Son of Late Kaming Tana resident of Village IAY/ Seramso Po and PS Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 85: Kaming Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Tapuk Nabam resident of Village Taoso Po and Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 86: Tapuk Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Tango Nabam resident of Village Taoso PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 87: Doji Techi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tajik Techi permanent address Pakke Kessang Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh 88: Tado Gollo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Niya Gollo Resident of Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 89: Payo Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Tai Nabam Resident of Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 90: Tapu Nabam Page No.# 17/30 Age: Occupation : Son of Late Hari Nabam resident of Village Suchung PO and Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 91: Ramesh Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Lt. Niya Nabam Resident of Village Longpung PO and Ps Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 92: Smti Yala Tachang Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Taram Tachang Permanent Address Takosiniak Present Address Niti Darlong PO and PS Seijosa District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh 93: Yaku Techi Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Marka Techi Resident of Village Takosiniak PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 94: Fehi Kino (Doka) Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Tage Doka (Kino) Permanent address Village Takosiniak present address Village Niti Darlong PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 95: Takang Nabam Age: Page No.# 18/30 Occupation : Son of Late Nikum Nabam Resident of Village Khodaso District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 96: Taje Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Nisam Nabam Resident of Village Keko. District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 97: Tango Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Nikia Nabam Resident of Village Keko PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 98: Tapung Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Bagang Nabam Resident of Village Keko PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 99: Nikya Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of Late Sara Nabam Resident of Village Keko PO and PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Principal Secretary cum Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Page No.# 19/30 Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Power Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Commissioner / Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Tribal Affairs Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 6:The Chief Executive Officer/ Sr Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Power Grid Corporations of India Ltd Itanagar. 7:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : N Rama, Dindo Boni,Teshi Aaku,T Rahul,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam,A Kashyap Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 20/30 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) (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 Page No.# 21/30 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 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). Page No.# 22/30 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 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. Page No.# 23/30 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:- 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 Page No.# 24/30 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 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 Page No.# 25/30 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. 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 Page No.# 26/30 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 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 Page No.# 27/30 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 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 Page No.# 28/30 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 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 Page No.# 29/30 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. 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 Page No.# 30/30 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. 20) However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant