Page No.# 1/17 GAHC040013462023 2025:GAU-AP:803 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/475/2023 1. Smti Kekpe Rumdo, W/o late Tai Rumdo, Kamcham village, P.O/P.S Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Shri Tado Rumdo, S/o late Karmi Rumdo, Kamcham village P.O/P.S Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. Shri Tajum Rumdo, S/o late Karmi Rumdo, Kamcham village P.O/P.S Likabali, Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Shri Tanga Rumdo, late Karmi Rumdo, Kamcham village P.O/P.S Likabali, Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. ..…Petitioners Page No.# 2/17 – VERSUS – 1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Rural Work Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Executive Magistrate, Likabali, Lower Siang District, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Basar, Camp: Likabali, RWD, Lower Siang District, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. M/s Nima Enterprises represented by its Proprietor Shri Kora Mengnia Dabu, village Mengnia, P.O/P.S. Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 5. M/s IT Enterprises represented by its Proprietor Shri Doi Tarak, S/o late Mardo Tarak, village Liru, P.O/P.S. Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 6. Shri Sapken Yomgam, President of KCSU, village Kangku, P.O/P.S. Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 7. Shri Jarcham Ngomle, President of KCGBWA, village Hime, P.O/P.S. Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. ...... Respondents. Page No.# 3/17 Advocate for the Petitioners : Ms. N. Danggen Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. G. Tarak, SC Ms. G. Ete. Addl. Sr. GA. Date of Hearing& Judgment :26.06.2025 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Work Department, for respondents No.1 and 3 and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent No.2. None appears for the private respondents No.4, 5, 6 and 7. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Executive Magistrate, Likabali, Lower Siang District, whereby the respondent authorities in the Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Construction Agency, have been directed to carry out the construction of a new alignment of the PMGSY Road from Along-Likabali BRO Road to Kangku (30.00 KM), which passes through the private land of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to carry out the Page No.# 4/17 construction of the said PMGSY road as per the original DPR or to acquire the land and pay compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owner of an ancestral private land, measuring 87,628 Sq. Mtrs. located at Kamcham village under Kangku Circle, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh for which Land Possession Certificate (LPC), being No.DC/LSD/LM/LPC- KM/2022 dated 16.06.2022 has issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District. The Executive Engineer/DPIU-II, Basar, Rural Work Department, issued NIT dated 31.01.2019, for construction of road from Along-Likabali BRO Road to Kangku (30.00 KM) with an estimated cost of Rs.3460.29 lakhs, providing the completion period of 18 months. The work was awarded to one M/s Nima Enterprises, which is currently executing the works. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said road passes through the private land of the petitioners. One Shri Sakpen Yomgam, claiming to be the President of Kangku Circle Student Union, and one Shri Jarcham Ngomgle, President of Kangku Circle Gaon Burah Welfare Association, filed a false complaints to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, against the son of the petitioner No.1, alleging obstruction of ongoing PMGSY road work at Kamcham Village, without knowing the actual facts and circumstances on the ground, whereas the contractor and the Executive Engineer were deviating the construction of the said PMGSY road from the original DPR and guidelines. 5. 5. The petitioners, having detected the illegal activities of the Executing Agency in the construction of the said PMGSY road from Along-Likabali Page No.# 5/17 BRO Road to Kangku, has filed a complaint dated 10.08.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, stating that the contractor and the Executive Engineer are constructing the said road by deviating from the original DPR and are proposing to construct the road through a new alignment, which passes through the private land of the petitioner No.1. 6. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the Presidents of Kangku Circle Student Union and Kangku Circle Gaon Burah Welfare Association, and the counter-complaint filed by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Likabali has directed the parties to sort out the matter amicably by means of mediation and accordingly, a meeting was conducted on 24.08.2023, wherein a decision was arrived at, requesting the respondent authorities to construct the said PMGSY road as per the original DPR, which is through the forest road and on the basis of Geo tags of Kamcham village. However, after 4 (four) days of the meeting, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Executive Magistrate, Likabali, passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, whereby the contractor and the Department have been directed to carry out the construction of the road through the land of the petitioners, in violation of the original DPR and the PMGSY Guidelines. 7. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Executive Magistrate, Likabali, is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as the said authority lacks the power to direct the Executing Agency to carry out construction of the road without obtaining due approval from the competent authorities under the PMGSY scheme. Page No.# 6/17 She submits that the impugned order has been passed on the presumption that the original DPR via forest road is objected to by the residents of Assam, which is factually incorrect, as the land in question exclusively falls within the territory of the state of Arunachal Pradesh. 8. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, while referring the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the Government of Assam and the Arunachal Pradesh on 20.04.2023, submits that as per the said MOU, it was mutually agreed that the boundary in respect of Kamcham village, is at the forest road, beyond which lies the proposed road as per the original DPR. She, therefore, submits that there exists no justifiable reason for deviating from the original DPR, and the decision taken by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner is ill-informed, and violative of the petitioners’ legal rights over their private land. 9. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are not opposing the construction of the road from Along-Likabali BRO road to Kangku, but are aggrieved by the impugned decision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner -cum-Executive Magistrate, whereby, in a blatant misuse of power, the Executing Agency has been arbitrarily directed to construct the said road by deviating from the original DPR of the road and to construct nearly 1.8 km approx. which passes through the land of the petitioners who is having a valid Land Possession Certificate. She submits that the petitioners have no objection to the construction of the said road subject to acquisition of land in accordance with law and payment of adequate compensation. 10. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submit that Article 300A of the Constitution of India, provides that no person shall be deprived of their Page No.# 7/17 property except by the authority of law, which necessarily implies a law enacted by a competent legislature or an order having the force of law must be followed. In the present case, an acquisition must be undertaken under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Authority Act, 2013. However, the respondent authorities without following the due process of law, have directly allowed the respondents to construct PMGSY road. She submits that the State ordinarily can acquire a property in exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, however, the same has to be subject to existence of a public purpose and on payment of reasonable compensation in terms of the relevant Acts, under which acquisition proceedings are initiated. She submits that it is now well settled that non arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 pervading the entire realm of the State action governed by the Article 14. It is established, as a further corollary, that Audi Alteram partem facet of Nature Justice is also requirement of Article 14 for Natural Justice is the anti-thesis of arbitrariness. However, in the instant case, the respondent authorities without following due process, arbitrarily allowed to construct the PMGSY road over the petitioner’s private land without initiating acquisition proceedings. She submits that the petitioners, being members of a Schedule Tribe, rely entirely on agriculture and forest-based livelihood. If their sole means of sustenance is taken without compensation, it would gravely affect their survival. Therefore, the petitioners prays for restraining the ongoing construction of road till the land is acquired completely. 11. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, while referring to the Programme Guidelines (PMGSY-III) August, 2019, submits that it will be the Page No.# 8/17 responsibility of the State Government to ensure that the land required for taking up the proposed road works. A certificate that land is available must accompany the proposal for each road work. Although the PMGSY-III does not provide any funds for land acquisition, it does not mean that acquisition cannot be done by the State Government. The State Government may also lay down guidelines for voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land. The process of making land available for the road works should serve the common good and also be just and equitable. Therefore, there is no bar to acquire the land by the State Government at its own cost, as such, since the land in question is private land of the petitioners, over which the said PMGSY road is being constructed, the State authorities may be directed to acquire the land of the petitioners, as the same is intended for a public purpose of construction of the PMGSY road. 12. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, in support of her submissions, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 356, wherein it has been held which is reproduced herein under: “96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others3. In view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. Page No.# 9/17 97. Article 300A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. As held by this Court in a plethora of decisions, including State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh; Jelubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as held by this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra 98. It has been established beyond any iota of doubt that the private road admeasuring 414 sq. meter area had never been acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The right to property includes any proprietary interest hereditary interest in the right of management of a religion endowment, as well as anything acquired by inheritance. However, laudable be the purpose, the executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority, which can be established in a court of law. 99. In case of dispossession, except under the authority of law, the owner might obtain restoration of possession by a proceeding for Mandamus against the Government as held by this Court in Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. Admittedly, no compensation has been offered or paid to the appellant Trust. As observed by this Court in K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, even though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not expressly provided in Article 300A of the Constitution, it is inbuilt in the Article. The State seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall Page No.# 10/17 be paid. The Regional and Town Planning Act also does not contemplate deprivation of a land holder of his land, without compensation. Statutory authorities are bound to pay adequate compensation. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. 102. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh v. M.R. Apparao . Pattanaik J. observed: (SCC p.659, para 17) “17…..One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, “Mandamus” means a command. It differs form the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any Page No.# 11/17 public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.” 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel and Ms. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State have submitted that a joint meeting was held on 24.08.2023 pursuant to the directions of the District Administration. After detailed discussions with the landowners, Student Organization, and Gaon Burah Association, the Executive order dated 28.08.08.2023 was passed in public interest with the mutual consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Shri Iken Rundo, son of petitioner No. 1, who was posted as Circle Officer at Likabali at the relevant time, created obstruction by not allowing the Executing Agency to carry out the road construction work over a stretch of approximately 100 meters of land claimed by him. As a result, complaints were lodged by the Kangku Circle Student Union and the Gaon Burah Association of Kangku Circle, seeking administrative intervention in the interest of the public. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 was passed not only on the ground that certain Page No.# 12/17 individuals from the State of Assam had allegedly created hindrances in the construction of the road, but also to modify the road alignment of the Forest Department road which originally is 45 degree in alignment, hence to maintain proper road alignment the Executing Agency has prepared new plan which was finally accepted by the individual land owners. Therefore, it is only the petitioners who is disturbing the construction of road, in spite of order from the District Administration. Such obstruction is causing serious inconvenience to the public of Kangku Circle in particular, and to commuters at large, as the general public is being compelled to take an alternate route through the Assam PMGSY road, which is not only longer but also not intended for such re routed traffic. Hence, the interference by the petitioner is adversely affecting the progress of a public welfare project and causing undue hardship to the local population. 15. Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel submits that it is admitted that the said road passes through the land of petitioners which is an area of around 100L x 78 mtrs for which the district administration has directed the contractor to erect barbed wire fencing at both sides of the road though no such provision is given in the guidelines of PMGSY scheme. It is further submitted that in the present case, all other landowners affected by the disputed stretch of land had mutually agreed to the conditions recorded in the Executive Order dated 28.08.2023, during the joint meeting held on 24.08.2023. Based on such mutual understanding, the executing agency commenced road construction activities and completed the construction of two culverts, along with formation cutting over the disputed stretch. However, due to the pendency of the instant writ petition and the objection raised by the petitioners, the construction work on the Page No.# 13/17 portion of land of the petitioner has been halted, leaving that segment of the road incomplete. As a result, commuters are being compelled to take an alternate route via the Assam PMGSY road, causing public inconvenience. 16. He submits that in the interest of the general public and to ensure smooth and uninterrupted connectivity, the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 warrants no interference. The Executing Agency may be permitted to complete the remaining portion of the road construction, in the larger interest of the public. They further submits that the authority had made all possible efforts to resolve the issue amicably by convening a joint meeting on 24.08.2023. During the said meeting, the parties, including the petitioners had accepted the decision taken therein. However, despite such mutual understanding, the petitioners have subsequently filed the present writ petition seeking compensation. As per the Guidelines of PMGSY, there is no provision or scheme for compensation under the said programme. Had such a provision existed, the respondents would have initiated the necessary process. Therefore, the reliefs sought for are not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 18. The claim of the petitioners essentially, is for acquisition of their private land over which the PMGSY road is being constructed from Along- Likabali BRO to Kangku village. The basis of the claim is to the effect that since the land over which the road is being constructed is a private land of Page No.# 14/17 the petitioners and they cannot be deprived of their property without due process of law, as such deprivation would amount to a violation of the constitutional and human right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 19. It is true that a citizen cannot be deprived of their property without following due process of law, otherwise the same would be violative of the constitutional right as provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. However, for construction of road under the PMGSY scheme, there is no specific provision under the law for land acquisition or payment of compensation. In a State like Arunachal Pradesh, if road constructions are to be carried out strictly through land acquisition and payment of compensation, it would seriously affect the public interest, as the development of road connectivity and infrastructure would become impossible in many remote areas. The construction of PMGSY road and its guidelines does not provide for any compulsory acquisition of land and for payment of compensation. Rather, it is a policy of the Government of India to facilitate the development of rural road infrastructure under the PMGSY in the remote villages of the Country. 20. The programme objectives and guiding principle (PMGSY-III) 2019, inter alia, provides that it will be the responsibility of the State Government/District Panchayat to ensure that the land required, for the proposed Right of Way (RoW) is available for taking up the proposed upgradation road works. A certificate that land is available must accompany the proposal for each road work. Although the PMGSY-III does not provide any funds for land acquisition, it does not mean that Page No.# 15/17 acquisition cannot be done by the State Government at its own cost. The State Government may also lay down guidelines for voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land. The process of making land available for the road works should subserve the common good and also be just and equitable. The details of land made available should be reflected in the local land records to avoid disputes, immediately upon approval of road work and preferably before commencement of execution of work. Environment and Forest clearances will be mandatory before seeking clearances of any PMGSY-III Project. 21. Bare reading of the above guidelines indicates that it is the responsibility of the State Government to make available land for taking up the proposed upgradation road works and the certificate that land is available must accompany the proposal for each road works, and the PMGSY-III does not provide any funds for land acquisition, it would not mean that the acquisition cannot be done by the State Government at its own cost, the State Government may also lay down guidelines for voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land and the process of making land available for the road works should subserve the common good and also just and equitable. In my view, that would mean, the State Government to make available of the land by way of voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land and as such, certain amount of discretion is provided to the State Government for acquisition of the land in a given case. Thus, it does not mandate that for the construction of PMGSY road, the land has to be compulsorily acquired and pay compensation. Page No.# 16/17 22. As noted above, if land is required to be acquired and pay compensation for construction of PMGSY roads, the development of road infrastructure in the State would not be possible, which would be against the larger public interest. No doubt, certain stretch of the proposed PMGSY road passes through the land of the petitioners, the construction of the said road would be beneficial to the general public, including the petitioners themselves. In such circumstances, the private interest of the petitioners, in my view, should yield to the greater public interest. 23. There is no quarrel to the law laid down in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (Supra). It is well settled that the right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right. Article 300A of the Constitution embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. The State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation. However, in the present case, the road construction is under the Central Govt. scheme of PMGSY having its own guidelines for rural connectivity, which appears to be passed through not only small portion of land of the petitioners but also through other people’s land in the area. There is no provision for compensation under the scheme except certain discretion to the State Government for which this court would loath to issue mandamus to acquire the land and pay compensation which would certainly against the public interest. Page No.# 17/17 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order dated 28.08.2023, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Executive Magistrate, Likabali, Lower Siang District, and to direct the respondent authorities to acquire the land of the petitioners and construct the PMGSY road in view of the fact that the order has been passed considering the public interest and alignment of the road is to be decided by the experts. No relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Cost(s) made easy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant