Page No.# 1/12 GAHC040018402024 2026:GAU-AP:977 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/615/2024 Smti Mobi Bamey W/o Late Kargo Bamey, Village Likahabali, P.O/P.S Likhabali, Dist. East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Others represented bysecretary/commissioner, Land Management Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Government of Arunachal pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : West Siang Aalo A. P 5:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Page No.# 2/12 Occupation : Likhabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:THE UNION OF INDIA Age: 0 Occupation : through the Ministry of home Affairs and Defense Government of India New Delhi 7:The Deputy Inspector General Age: 0 Occupation : Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Govt. of India Itanagar Khating Hill 8:The Commandant Age: 0 Occupation : 10th Bn. ITBP likhabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Nyado Karga, Gamken Bam,Kirmani Lollen,Gumto Kato Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Page No.# 3/12 Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondents/Union of India. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the balance compensation amount in respect of her land measuring 17,900 sq. metres, situated at Malini Village, Likabali, which has been occupied by the respondents for establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the ITBP at Likabali, along with solatium and interest, in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner and possessor of private land measuring 17,900 sq. metres, situated near Malini Village, Likabali, in respect of which a Land Possession Certificate (LPC) was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Likabali. The Secretary, Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a notification dated 09.10.2017 for acquisition of land measuring 99,462 sq. metres for establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the ITBP at Likabali, which included the aforesaid private land of the petitioner. The respondent authorities took possession of the petitioner’s entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres for the aforesaid purpose, on the assurance that she would be paid compensation. Page No.# 4/12 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that compensation was initially paid at the rate of Rs. 1,100/- per sq. metre for an area of 3,490 sq. metres, amounting to Rs. 38,39,495/-. A further amount of Rs. 38,39,495/- was paid in the name of one Mr. Kardak Bamey, stated to be the younger brother of the petitioner's late husband, in respect of another 3,490 sq. metres. Thus, the compensation was paid in respect of only 6,980 sq. metres out of the total area of 17,900 sq. metres, while the remaining area measuring 10,920 sq. metres continued to remain under the possession of the ITBP without payment of the corresponding compensation. It is stated that upon the petitioner raising an objection and seeking payment of the balance compensation, an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- was subsequently deposited in her bank account, but the remaining compensation was not paid. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on several occasions seeking payment of the balance compensation, including by submitting representations before the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang, Aalo. However, despite such representations, no effective action was taken. The petitioner further claims entitlement to solatium and interest on the unpaid compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents have taken possession of her private land without following the procedure prescribed for acquisition and without paying the full compensation payable to her. 6. Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the ownership of the petitioner over the land in question is not in dispute, as the same is evidenced by the Land Possession Certificate issued by the competent authority. He submits that although the respondents have taken possession of the entire Page No.# 5/12 17,900 sq. metres of the petitioner's land for establishment of the ITBP Sector Headquarters, compensation has been paid only in respect of 6,980 sq. metres and thereafter, only a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was deposited towards the remaining area of 10,920 sq. metres. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents cannot retain possession and utilise the petitioner's private land without payment of the full compensation legally payable to her. He submits that the acquisition and occupation of the petitioner's land were not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and the petitioner is entitled not only to the balance compensation at the rate at which compensation was earlier paid, but also to the applicable solatium and interest. Therefore, he submits that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to determine and pay the full compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, submits that the case of the petitioner that her entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres was acquired is not borne out from the records. Out of the total area of 17,900 sq. metres claimed by the petitioner’s family, only an area of 6,980.90 sq. metres was acquired, comprising 3,490.45 sq. metres each in respect of the petitioner, Smti. Mobi Bamey, and Shri Kardak Bamey. She submits that the petitioner has already received compensation in respect of her land standing in her name at the rate of Rs. 550/- per sq. metre, together with 100% solatium, totalling Rs. 38,39,495/-, which amount was duly accepted by the petitioner without any objection or condition. 9. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submits that the Page No.# 6/12 acquisition was undertaken pursuant to the request of the ITBP as well as the written proposal submitted by the concerned land owners, including the petitioner, and the prescribed procedure was duly followed. She submits that sufficient opportunity was also afforded to the concerned land owners to submit their claims and objections and thereafter, joint survey and demarcation of the acquired land were undertaken. She submits that the land was acquired under the classification of “Commercial plot in market area” at the notified rate of Rs. 550/- per sq. metre and the 100% solatium on the land value had already been paid to the petitioner. 10. As regards the further amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- deposited in the petitioner’s bank account, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that the said amount was not towards compensation for the alleged remaining area of 10,920 sq. metres, but appears from the records, as interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the land value. Therefore, she submits that no compensation remains due or payable to the petitioner as per the official records and as such, the allegations of illegal or forcible occupation and non-payment of compensation are without basis and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for direction by this Court. 11. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondents/Union of India, submits that the entire process of acquisition of the land for establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the ITBP at Likabali was undertaken by the Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and the Deputy Commissioner/District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, West Siang, Aalo. He submits that the ITBP had offered the requisite land for establishment of its Sector Headquarters and the entire amount of Rs. 12,14,41,881/- has been sanctioned towards acquisition of 24.576 acres, equivalent to 99,462 sq. metres, Page No.# 7/12 was deposited by the ITBP in the joint bank account of the Deputy Commissioner and the DLRSO, West Siang, for further disbursement to the concerned land owners. 12. Learned DSGI further submits that the identification of the actual land owners, determination of the area acquired and calculation and disbursement of compensation were matters within the domain of the Deputy Commissioner and the DLRSO, West Siang, and the ITBP has no role in such disbursement. He submits that the possession of the acquired land was handed over peacefully by the State revenue authorities to the ITBP through a Board of Officers and no objection regarding the acquisition or taking over of possession was brought to the notice of the ITBP authorities. He submits that the ITBP did not take possession of the petitioner’s land illegally or independently of the acquisition proceedings and the entire land acquisition process and handing over of possession were completed by the State authorities and since the full amount towards the acquisition had already been deposited by the ITBP with the Deputy Commissioner and DLRSO, any dispute regarding the actual amount payable to the petitioner or the disbursement thereof is a matter to be addressed by the concerned State revenue authorities. Therefore, he submits that no liability can be fastened upon the ITBP in respect of the alleged non-payment of compensation to the petitioner. 13. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, further submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the ITBP has clarified that the entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres claimed by the petitioner forms part of the total 99,462 sq. metres acquired for establishment of the Sector Headquarters, ITBP at Likabali and is presently under the possession of the ITBP. He further submits that the total compensation of Rs. 12,14,41,881/- assessed for the acquired land was Page No.# 8/12 sanctioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs and deposited with the Deputy Commissioner and DLRSO, West Siang, Aalo, for disbursement to the concerned land owners. 14. While rejoining his submissions, Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the stand of the State respondents that only 6,980.90 sq. metres of the petitioner’s land was acquired is contrary to the records. He submits that the petitioner’s LPC records her landholding as measuring 17,900 sq. metres and the entire area is under the possession of the ITBP. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- deposited in the petitioner’s account was an advance towards the compensation for the remaining land and not towards interest, as now contended by the State respondents. He submits that the respondents have not placed the relevant revenue and valuation records before this Court. Referring to the communication dated 18.12.2017, issued by the ITBP, he submits that the said communication itself reflects the petitioner’s landholding as 17,900 sq. metres. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to payment of the balance compensation for the entire land under the possession of the ITBP, along with applicable solatium and interest, in accordance with law. 15. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 16. From the pleadings and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner’s entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres forms part of the land acquired for establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the ITBP at Likabali and if so, whether the petitioner has been paid the compensation legally payable to her in respect thereof. Page No.# 9/12 17. The stand of the State respondents is that only 6,980.90 sq. metres of the land claimed by the petitioner’s family was acquired and the petitioner has received the compensation along with 100% solatium payable in respect thereof. However, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the ITBP, in its additional affidavit, has clarified that the entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres claimed by the petitioner forms part of the total acquired area measuring 99,462 sq. metres for establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the ITBP at Likabali and is presently under the possession of the ITBP. It has further been stated that the total compensation amount of Rs. 12,14,41,881/- sanctioned towards acquisition of the entire acquired land was deposited with the Deputy Commissioner and DLRSO, West Siang, Aalo, for disbursement to the concerned land owners. 18. Record reveals that there is a discrepancy between the area of land reflected in the Land Possession Certificate of the petitioner and the area for which compensation has actually been disbursed. The Land Possession Certificate reflects the petitioner’s landholding as measuring 17,900 sq. metres, whereas the statement of disbursement produced by the respondents shows payment of Rs. 38,39,495/- to the petitioner for an area of only 3,490.45 sq. metres. The State respondents seek to explain the position by contending that out of the land claimed by the petitioner’s family, only 6,980.90 sq. metres was acquired. However, this stand does not fully reconcile with the specific clarification furnished by the ITBP in its additional affidavit. 19. Records further disclose that compensation was disbursed amongst eight persons and a sum of Rs. 10,94,08,200/- was shown as having been paid towards compensation. The communication dated 18.12.2017, issued by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ (Itanagar), ITBP, had itself sought clarification Page No.# 10/12 from the Deputy Commissioner regarding the manner in which compensation had been distributed amongst the concerned persons, particularly in view of the discrepancy between the Land Possession Certificate and the documents furnished for the acquisition. Even before this Court, the State respondents have not been able to satisfactorily reconcile the aforesaid discrepancy, despite ample opportunities provided by this Court. 20. The subsequent deposit of a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the petitioner’s bank account also does not resolve the issue. While the petitioner claims the said amount to be towards compensation for the remaining land, the State respondents contend that the amount represents interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. In the absence of a clear and conclusive determination from the competent authority, this Court is not inclined to accept either of the versions merely on the basis of the submissions made before it. The amount already received by the petitioner, however, shall necessarily be duly accounted for while determining the balance amount payable to her. 21. It is also brought on record that the petitioner has donated the land in question. However, the said subsequent act cannot obliterate or otherwise conclude the question of compensation arising out of the acquisition proceedings under which the land was taken over and is admittedly under the possession of the ITBP. The entitlement, if any, arising from the acquisition has to be determined with reference to the acquisition proceedings, the relevant revenue records and the applicable provisions of law as well as agreed terms of acquisition at relevant point of time. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner’s entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres forms part of the total acquired area measuring 99,462 sq. metres and is presently under the Page No.# 11/12 possession of the ITBP. However, the records show that compensation has been disbursed to the petitioner and one Mr. Kardak Bamey, who is stated to be the younger brother of the petitioner's late husband, only in respect of 6980 sq. metres. Thus, compensation in respect of the remaining area measuring 10,920 sq. meters of the petitioner’s land remains to be determined and disbursed. The dispute as to the exact amount payable, including the nature of the further amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- deposited in the petitioner’s account, is a matter which can appropriately be examined by the competent State authorities on the basis of the original acquisition and revenue records. 23. Accordingly, the respondent authorities of the State, more particularly, the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, and the District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer, West Siang, Aalo, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 herein, are directed to determine the compensation legally payable to the petitioner in respect of the remaining area of 10,920 sq. metres, after taking into account the compensation already disbursed in respect of 6,980 sq. metres and after duly verifying whether any further amount already paid to the petitioner is liable to be adjusted towards the compensation payable for the remaining area. The entitlement of the petitioner to solatium, interest and other statutory benefits shall also be determined in accordance with agreed terms at the time of acquisition back then and the amount so determined to be payable shall thereafter be disbursed to the petitioner within the period stipulated hereinbelow. 24. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the remaining compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid 10,920 sq. metres, together with the statutory benefits found payable, shall be disbursed to her within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified Page No.# 12/12 copy of this order. 25. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the competent authority shall take into consideration the Land Possession Certificate reflecting the petitioner’s landholding of 17,900 sq. metres, the acquisition records, the records relating to disbursement of compensation and, in particular, the categorical clarification furnished by the respondent ITBP that the entire land measuring 17,900 sq. metres claimed by the petitioner forms part of the total acquired area measuring 99,462 sq. metres and is presently under its possession. 26. It is further clarified that the fact that the petitioner has subsequently donated the land in question shall not preclude the competent authority from determining and disbursing the compensation legally payable to her in respect of the land acquired from her, in accordance with law. 27. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Lipak Rime, Private Secretary Comparing Assistant