Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040008492022 2025:GAU-AP:175 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/247/2022 Yeromso Samba and 13 Ors. S/o Shri Sowelum Samba, Resident of Hayuliang Circle, PO/PS Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Thagun Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. T. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Nemso Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. Jolin Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Sowelum Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. A. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Melenso Samba Age: Page No.# 2/9 Occupation : S/o Bahalum Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Sonum Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. T. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Soying Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. S. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Godamso Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. S. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Haliamso Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Late. S. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Sochalum Samba Age: Occupation : S/o D. Samba Page No.# 3/9 Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Sobin Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. T. Samba Reisdent of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Bahelum Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Lt. J. Samba PO/PS Hayuliang Anjaw District AP 13: Kanunso Samba Age: Occupation : S/o Late D. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Luckiso Samba Age: Occupation : S/o B. Samba Resident of Hayuliang Circle PO/PS Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 690942342 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 5 Ors. Represented through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP, Itanagar, AP 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Page No.# 4/9 Occupation : Land Management Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar AP 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Itanagar Govt. of AP 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Hayuliang Anjaw District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Anengso Samba Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Lt. Glenso Samba R/o Ziro (mele) PO Hayuliang District Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Sikamsoo Boo Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Magin Boo R/o Loiliang PO/PS Tezu District Lohit Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, k N Maling,Madan Mili,Ebo Mili,Sonam Tsomo,Chanya Bangsia,T Siga,Kuku Miyu Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), S K Deori,Dugmar Kamduk,SC(Land Management) Page No.# 5/9 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioners : Shri S Mow, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri RH Nabam, Addl. AG, AP; Shri D Kamduk, SC, Land Management & Shri SK Deori, Advocate, R/5 and 6. Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025. Date of Judgment : 03.02.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Shri S Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Sri RH Nabam, learned Addl. AG, AP as well as Shri D Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management whereas Shri SK Deori, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a) A Writ of certiorari shall not be issued for setting aside and quashing of impugned order No. order ANJ/LM- 34/VOL-II/2012-13 dated Hawai the 30th May 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw, District, A.P. b) A Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued to the respondent No.4 to immediately disburse the compensation amount to the 21 affected land owners. Page No.# 6/9 c) to issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IN INTERIM The petitioners most respectfully pray for stay of impugned Order ANJ/LM- 34/VOL-II/2012-13 dated Hawai the 30th May 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw, District, A.P.” 3. The contesting respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition. 4. The principal grievance of the petitioner qua the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 is that the determination of quantification has not been done by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw in accordance with law, namely, Regulation 10 of the Jhum Land Regulation, 1947. He has submitted that the quantification is done on the behest of the private respondents whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw District has abdicated his powers. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nabam, learned Addl. AG has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw has taken into consideration the relevant factors, including the minutes of the meeting dated 07.01.2022 arrived at between the members of the two Clans, namely, Samba and Boo Clans. He has also submitted that the amount, as such is not disputed as it has already been allotted by the requisitioning authority, namely, ITBP and it is only a matter of disbursement of the said amount. 6. Shri Deori, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality wherein all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, the learned counsel has submitted that even the signatories of the respective Clans and the neutral witnesses have been mentioned in the said paragraph and Page No.# 7/9 therefore, the petitioners would be estopped from making any challenge regarding the same. 7. Shri Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management endorses the submissions of the learned Addl. AG, AP and has opposed the petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his rejoinder has submitted that prior to the meeting dated 07.01.2022, there was another meeting held which culminated in an agreement dated 28.03.2016 and the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Deputy Commissioner. 9. From the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 itself it appears that there was an earlier round of litigation on the aforesaid aspect which was instituted by the petitioners. The earlier writ petition, viz, WP(C)/204/2021 was dismissed on 20.09.2021 with the following observations: “On perusal of the list of 21 beneficiaries annexed therein along with the bank account details, no specific amount of the compensation receivable by each of the 21 beneficiaries have been indicated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District. That apart, this writ petitioner has been filed by only 13 of the beneficiaries whose names are found in the list of 21 beneficiaries submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District. Neither in the physical verification report dated 04.03.2021 nor the 13 petitioners herein have stated in the writ petition as to how much compensation each of the beneficiaries are receivable as determined by the Land Acquiring Authorities. In the absence of any specified amount determined by the Land Acquiring Authorities for each of the petitioners pursuant to notification dated 18.06.2016 issued under Section (10) of Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947, no direction can be given to the Deputy Commissioner to disburse the compensation amount deposited by the ITBP.” Page No.# 8/9 10. The said order was followed by a minute of meeting dated 07.01.2022 between the two Clans. The grievance of the petitioner is that the manner of distribution which was to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw has been done on the basis of the aforesaid minutes which was given by the two private respondents. It, however, transpires that the two private respondents have simply forwarded the minutes of meeting dated 07.01.2022 wherein at least, 3 numbers of writ petitioners also appear to be signatories. That apart, this Court has noticed that in the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration and the minutes of meeting dated 07.01.2022 is also one of the relevant factors. As noted above, the aforesaid minutes was a meeting between two Clans regarding their respective shares. The said minutes as such is not the subject matter of dispute in any forum. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that when the manner of the respective shares of the compensation has already arrived at by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Anjaw, the scope for interference by this Court is very limited, more so when there is no allegation of mala fide or misuse/abuse of jurisdiction. On the other hand, this Court has noticed that the order was passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction vested upon him. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference has been able to be made out by the petitioner. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the aspect of ownership of the plot of land, no definite finding has been arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner. He accordingly prays for a liberty to approach the Civil Court for such determination. 14. Accordingly, this Court observes that the aggrieved parties may approach the Civil Court Page No.# 9/9 and in event such approach is made, the same is to be considered strictly in accordance with law, including the aspect of limitation. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant