JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellants in all the 15 appeals and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondent Nos. 1-3. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Highway Department, for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, for the respondent No. 5, in all the 15 appeals. 2. By this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 03(AP)/2026; 04(AP)/2026; 05(AP)/2026; 06(AP)/2026; 07(AP)/2026; 08(AP)/2026; 09(AP)/2026; 10(AP)/2026; 11/(AP)2026; 12/ (AP)2026; 13(AP)/2026; 14(AP)/2026; 15(AP)/2026; 16(AP)/2026; 17(AP)/2026 and 18(AP)/2026; as, in all these appeals, the challenge is the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.11.2025, in WP(C) Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; is assailed. Background Facts:- 3. “The appellants have private land, located at Tirap district, which were acquisitioned for construction and widening of existing Khonsa to Hunkanjuri road, measuring 35 km in length and 24 meters in width, from Khonsa petrol pump to Hunkanjuri, under Trans Arunachal Highway (TAH). The appellants were paid compensation for acquiring their private land, but they had not been paid solatium amount, at the time of payment of compensation, which, they are entitled to, under the law. Then being aggrieved, they approached this Court by filing writ petition Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; with a prayer for issuing direction to the respondents for payment of solatium and interest on solatium to the petitioners, as entitled to under the law. But, the learned Single Judge, vide Judgment and Order, dated 19.11.2025, in WP(C) Nos. 392(AP)/2023; 411(AP)/2025; 413(AP)/2025; 466(AP)/2024; 25(AP)/2024; 30(AP)/2024; 475(AP)/2022; 245(AP)/2023; 412(AP)/2025; 270(AP)/2023; 247(AP)/2023; 207(AP)/2024; 246(AP)/2023; 445(AP)/2022; 244(AP)/2023; has dismissed the same. The being aggrieved, they have approached this Court, by filing the present appeals. The Contention of the appellants in the before the learned Single Judge:- 4. It is the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to 100% solatium with interest, even after closure of the acquisition proceeding or disbursement of acceptance of the compensation amount, in view of paragraph No. 28, of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11884-11888/2025, arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 9585-9589/2023 ( State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Mihin Laling & Ors. 11884-11888/2025, arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 9585-9589/2023 ( State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Mihin Laling & Ors. wherein, it is stated that - “ 28. In respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above." The further contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge is that in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) , it was concluded acquisition, where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed; and in paragraph No. 25 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that– “ 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct that the respondents shall also be entitled to solatium as well as interest in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.” In paragraph No. 26 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that - “ 26. The appellants shall ensure that any arrears towards solatium and interest, wherever not yet paid, are released to the landowners of the subject-acquisition within a period of three months from today." And as such, it is a settled provision of law, that the land owners are entitled solatium with interest, for acquisitioning of their land, even after conclusion of acquisition; where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed and the present appellants are similarly situated, like the respondents, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra). The Contentions of the respondents before the learned Single Judge. 5. The contentions of the respondents before the learned Single Judge, in the writ proceeding; are as under - (a) The case of the appellants/petitioners are not covered by the Judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) (b) The present case is a case of concluded acquisition process, wherein, compensation has already been disbursed and accepted by the petitioners before filing the present writ petition. It is also the contention of the respondents herein before the learned Single Judge, that at the time of disbursement of compensation amount, the petitioners have never raised the issue of payment of solatium and the compensation amount as accordingly accepted by them. It is also the contention of the respondents herein before the learned Single Judge, that at the time of disbursement of compensation amount, the petitioners have never raised the issue of payment of solatium and the compensation amount as accordingly accepted by them. Further, from the notice annexed with the petition, indicates that the petitioners have issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner, seeking solatium @100% of the compensation amount, only after the Judgment and Order, being passed by this Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) , and prior to that, there was no prayer for solatium by the petitioners; and that, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) , in paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reopening of the concluded acquisition under the 1947 Regulation, is not permissible. (c) In Para No. 28 of the judgment of Mihin Laling (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in respect of concluded acquisition, where, the compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. It is also the contention of the respondents that the interpretation of the subsequent lines of the said para, is only for the case which are still pending before any competent authority or Court, to consider the solatium on the compensation amount, but it is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases, where acquisition proceeding is concluded, there cannot be any question of reopening for reassessment of the compensation. (d) It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners, who have already accepted the compensation amount, after conclusion of entire acquisition; are not entitled for 100% solatium, as prayed for. The Issues that have arisen before the learned Single Judge for decision:- 6. (i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for payment of solatium with interest, for acquisitioning of their land, in the construction of Trans Arunachal Highway” The Conclusion and decision of the learned Single Judge:- 7. The Issues that have arisen before the learned Single Judge for decision:- 6. (i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for payment of solatium with interest, for acquisitioning of their land, in the construction of Trans Arunachal Highway” The Conclusion and decision of the learned Single Judge:- 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments of both the parties and also, considering the pleadings of the parties and also taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), has observed as under - (a) The petitioners have already received compensation for their acquired land and it is not in dispute that the compensation has already been disbursed and accepted by the petitioners. (b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), that the solatium is entitled by the persons, even after concluding the acquisition proceeding; in case, matters remain pending either before the competent authority or before the Court/Tribunals, the compensation shall be computed to include solatium and interest. (c) The acquisition and compensation matter of the petitioners were finally settled and not pending before any authority. Being so, interpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in different way and reopening a closed matter, is an abuse of judicial process and thereafter, the learned Single Judge had dismissed all the petitions. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants:- 8. Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), especially in paragraph No. 28; submits that though, the learned Single Judge has quoted the paragraph No. 28, of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the impugned Judgment; it has only taken into consideration the first part of the direction issued in the said order, wherein, it is provided that in respect of concluded acquisition, where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. But, referring to the second part of the direction, Mr. But, referring to the second part of the direction, Mr. Koyang submits that in the second part, it is stated that however, in all matters, which remain pending either before the competent authority or before the Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest, as above; and this part of direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court assured consideration of the learned Single Judge and on such ground, the impugned Judgment and Order, passed by the learned Single Judge; is liable to be interfered with. Submission of the learned for the respondents- 9. Per contra, Mr. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, however, supported the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge, and submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) , does not cover the case of the appellants. 9.1 He further submits that the petitioners’ case have already been concluded and they have received the compensation amount, sometimes in the year 2013; and they have issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Arunachal Pradesh, which is annexed with the memo of appeal, at page No. 68; and the said notice was issued only after passing of the Judgment and Order, dated 25.04.2022, in WP(C) No. 280/2020; and as such, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), in paragraph No. 23; a concluded proceeding cannot be reopened. 9.2 Mr. Ratan has also pointed out that to the fact that the appellants herein have received the compensation amount, without any protest and now, they cannot derive the benefit of receiving the solatium @100%; in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), and under such circumstances, Mr. Ratan has contended to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeals and the grounds mentioned therein and also, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), and also the decision of the learned Single Judge in original WP(C) No. 280/2020, dated 25.04.2022; and also, the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 19.11.2025, in WP(C) No. 392(AP)/2023, of the learned Single Judge. 11. It appears that in paragraph Nos. 11. It appears that in paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 26 & 27; of the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has held as under – “ 24. Be it be clear that the discussion is that whether compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. Pending matters either before the competent authority/Court/ Tribunal, the compensation to include Solatium and interest. 25. The discussion is clear that matter already settled not permitted to be reopened. 26. In this instant case, the acquisition and compensation matter of the petitioners were finally settled and not pending before any authority. Being so, interpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in a different way and reopening a closed matter is an abuse of the judicial process. 27. This writ petition being devoid of merit and abuse of judicial process is hereby dismissed.” 12. It also appears that Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), in paragraph Nos. 25, 26, 27 & 28; has observed as under – “ 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct that the respondents shall also be entitled to solatium as well as interest in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 26. The appellants shall ensure that any arrears towards solatium and interest, wherever not yet paid, are released to the landowners of the subject-acquisition within a period of three months from today. 27. It is further clarified that the obligation of the State to pay 'solatium' and 'interest' shall be without prejudice to its right to recover the same from the ultimate beneficiaries of the acquisition, in accordance with law. 28. In respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above.” 13. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside, to that extent. However, in all matters which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest as above.” 13. The impugned judgment and order, dated 19.11.2025; while examined in the light of the provisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), it does not seems that the learned Single Judge has mis-interpreted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where, in no uncertain term, in paragraph No. 28; has held that in respect of concluded acquisitions, where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. 13.1. However, in the later part of the said paragraph, Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held that in all matters, which remain pending either before the competent authority or before a Court/Tribunal, the compensation shall be recomputed to include solatium and interest, as above. But, this part of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be read in harmony with that of the other paragraphs. 14. It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the Judgment, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), on 16.09.2025; and the impugned judgment and order in WP(C) No. 392(AP)/2023, was passed on 19.11.2025. At the time of disposal of the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , WP(C) No. 392(AP)/2023, was pending before this Court. 15. Now, the issue, that has arisen for consideration of this court is whether, this pendency of the writ petitions before this Court, seeking 100% solatium with interest, is covered by the dictum of laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court specially in the second part of paragraph No. 28, of the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) 16. To address this issue, we have to first understand what concluded acquisition is. And from a harmonious reading of para No.23, and 28 in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), it is discernible that concluded acquisition are those acquisition where compensation has been finally determined and accepted and disbursed. 17. In the case in hand, it is the categorical contention of Mr. And from a harmonious reading of para No.23, and 28 in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), it is discernible that concluded acquisition are those acquisition where compensation has been finally determined and accepted and disbursed. 17. In the case in hand, it is the categorical contention of Mr. N. Ratan, the learned Additional Advocate General, that the land acquisition process of the petitioners was concluded in the year 2013 itself, by issuing Government Notification, being LM-118/2012, dated 06.11.2013, wherein, the compensation was also disbursed and as such, it can be logically concluded that the acquisition process has already been concluded. The learned Additional Advocate General, also contended that the appellants have approached this Court, after issuing a legal notice, on 12.06.2023; to the Deputy Commissioner, only after the judgment and order being passed by another Single Judge of this court in WP(C) No. 280/2020, on 25.04.2022, and as such, according to him, this is a concluded proceeding and it cannot be reopened in view of the dictum of laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra). 18. There appears to be substance in the contention of Mr. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondent Nos. 1-3, while the same is considered in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra) specially in the para No. 23 and 28. In all these appeals the acquisition process relates back to the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2020, which is indicated in the chart below:- 18.1. Indisputably, in all these acquisition, the compensation has been finally determined by the authority and disbursed and also accepted by the appellants herein. Further, it appears that they have issued notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh, which is annexed with the memo of appeal, at page No. 68; and the said notice was issued only after passing of the Judgment, dated 25.04.2022, in WP(C) No. 280/2020, by a single Judge of this court. They had, thereafter, preferred the writ petitions, leading to impugned judgments. Having received the compensation in the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2020, the appellants had remained silent in all these year for about 10 years in some cases. They had, thereafter, preferred the writ petitions, leading to impugned judgments. Having received the compensation in the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2020, the appellants had remained silent in all these year for about 10 years in some cases. And further it appears that no proceeding was pending before the Judgment and Order, dated 25.04.2022, in WP(C) No. 280/2020, before any authority, or tribunal or before any court. 18.2. Further, it appears that in paragraph No.23, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that finality of administrative action cannot be lightly unsettled; to do so would not only destabilize public projects, but also create fiscal uncertainty. The paragraph is extracted herein below:- “ 23. At the same time, we are conscious of the limits of judicial intervention. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, permitted reopening of all concluded acquisitions under the 1947 Regulations for reassessment of compensation. Such in our an approach, considered opinion, may travel beyond the permissible bounds. Finality of administrative action cannot be lightly unsettled; to do so would not only destabilise public projects but also create fiscal uncertainty. Balance must therefore be struck by ensuring that pending and future acquisitions are aligned with the standards of the 2013 Act, while leaving untouched those transactions where compensation has been finally determined and accepted.” 18.3. Again, in paragraph No.28, in no uncertain terms Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in respect of concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted and disbursed, no reopening shall be permissible. 18.4. In view of above facts and circumstances, and also in view of the proposition that finality of administrative action cannot be lightly unsettled; else it would not only destabilise public projects but also create fiscal uncertainty, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. A harmonious reading of the first part of the paragraph No.28 with that of the later part, and taking note of the observations made in para No.23 and in other para, as discussed herein above, we are left unimpressed with the submissions advanced by Mr. Koiyang learned counsel for the appellants. On the other hand, we find substance in the submission of Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 19 . Koiyang learned counsel for the appellants. On the other hand, we find substance in the submission of Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 19 . Another aspect of the matter, which should lose sight of, is that in paragraph No. 24, in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under – “ 24. Before we part with these appeals, it merits mentioning that the controversy before us has since been laid to rest by legislative intervention. The Balipara/ Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2024, namely, Act No. 11 of 2024 (which has come into force in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with effect from 07.08.2024) has introduced a proviso to Section 10 explicitly stipulating that compensation under the 1947 Regulations shall not be less than that computed under the law of land acquisition in force at the relevant time. This amendment confirms, in statutory form, the interpretive conclusion reached by the High Court and supplemented by us. However, as a matter of legislative policy, it operates prospectively and cannot, by itself, justify disturbing concluded acquisitions.” 20. However, the amendment of Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2024, i.e. Act No. 11 of 2024, stipulated that compensation under the 1947 Regulations, shall not be less than that computed under the law of land acquisition in force at the relevant time, yet, this would also would not come into assistance of the appellants, in view of the fact that the same come into force in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with effect from 07.08.2024 only. Moreover, it has also been held in the said paragraph that since the amendment operates prospectively, the same would not justify disturbing concluded acquisitions. Notably, the land of the appellants herein was acquired in the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2020, under the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation Act, 1947, much before coming into effect of (Amendment) Act, 2024, from 07.08.2024. 21 . In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellants; and instead, we are in respectful agreement with the submission of Mr. Ratan, the learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 22 . 21 . In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Koyang, learned counsel for the appellants; and instead, we are in respectful agreement with the submission of Mr. Ratan, the learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 22 . Thus, having carefully perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (Supra), in its entirety and the proviso to Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadia Frontier Tract Jhum Land, regulated by way of amendment, which, will operate prospectively and would not justify re- opening of the concluded acquisition, we are of the view that the impugned judgments, so passed by the learned Single Judge, suffers from no illegality or irregularity requiring any interference of this court. 23 . In the result, this Court finds no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.