Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040015492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/430/2025 Bengia Taju Son of Bengia Tanak, resident of Village Rerung, PO Sarli, PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary (Land Management) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Kurung Kumey District Koloriang Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The District Land Revenue Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Shri Pisa Rai Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Pisa Togung resident of Village Lee Page No.# 2/5 PO Sarli PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Neelam Taje, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 08.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. Taje, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of his land situated in Rerung village under Tai Sarli Circle in the district of Kurung Kumey. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent authority concerned for construction of Arunachal Frontier Highway from Lada to Sarli, had acquired lands, but to the surprise of the petitioner, although his land is affected by the said construction of road, his name has not been included amongst the list of land owners who are to be affected and accordingly compensated for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Kurung Kumey, District-Koloriang had issued a Notice under Section 37(2) of the Right to Page No.# 3/5 Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013), wherein it was provided that an award has been prepared on 17.04.2025 and the parties concerned have been asked to inspect their award from 23.06.2025 to 24.06.2025 in the office of the ADC, Koloriang. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the name of the petitioner was not included in the said Notice, he submitted a representation before the District Land Revenue Settlement Officer, Kurung Kumey, District-Koloriang for re-verification or spot survey of the affected land of the petitioner on 28.06.2025. However, the same was not considered and therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Koloriang on 30.06.2025, wherein the petitioner has also taken the stand that the receipt of the compensation has been manipulated by the respondent No.5, although he has already been compensated. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the amount should not be released to the respondent No.5. A similar representation was also submitted by the petitioner before the District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, Koloriang on 30.06.2025 and also before the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 18.08.2025. Since the representations of the petitioner have not been considered by the respondent authorities concerned, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. At this stage, Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh submits that taking into account the nature of the grievance and complaints submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner would have to approach the reference authority in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 2013. Referring to the said provision, the learned Additional Advocate Page No.# 4/5 General submits that the Collector upon receipt of such reference, would refer it to the authority concerned, which would include objection with regard to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, the rights of rehabilitation and re- settlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. He, therefore, submits that since a remedy is available under the Act of 2013, the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy available to him before coming to this Court. 6. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013, it only appears that the petitioner can avail the remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, provided that he comes within the limitation prescribed. Section 64(2)(b) provides that the grounds taken in the application for objection of the award can be referred to the reference authority by the Collector, subject to the same having been filed within six months from the date of Collector’s award. 7. Having regard to the Notice issued under Section 37(2) of the Act of 2013, wherein it has been provided that the award was prepared on 17.04.2025, there appears to be time for filing a reference application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. 8. In view of the same, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Collector concerned with an application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which in any away should be filed within a week from today. Upon receipt of the same, the Collector shall proceed with the matter in terms of the further cause of action provided by Section 64 of the Act of 2013. Page No.# 5/5 9. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant