Page No.# 1/24 GAHC040017792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/504/2025 Tatin Medo and 18 Ors Son of Shri Gellong Medo, a permanent resident of Baazar Line, Tuting, PO and PS Tuting, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Omi Nitik Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Amin Nitik a permanent resident of Rishing Village Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Sunyok Bomong Age: Occupation : Son of Rajong Bomong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Oken Duggong @ Aken Duggong Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Asong Duggong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/24 5: Okit Doron Age: Occupation : Son of Baduk Doron a permanent resident of Cooperative Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Odi Danggen Age: Occupation : Son of Untung Danggen a permanent resident of Zido Village Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Gula Payeng Age: Occupation : Son of Atut Peyang PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 8: Panggong Duggong Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Asong Duggong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Olik Janoh Age: Occupation : Son of Late A Tali resident of PI Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Smti Osi Nijo Page No.# 3/24 Age: Occupation : Wife of Banggo Nijo resident of PI Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Smti Jamang Tamut Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Pamin Duggong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Smti Lideng Nitik Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Panggong Duggong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 13: Smti Ansung Duggong Age: Occupation : Wife of Shri Asong Duggong a permanent resident of Baazar Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 14: Gumbang Sitek Age: Occupation : Son of Ando Sitek a permanent resident of Zido Village Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 4/24 15: Epo Apang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Mojeng Apang a permanent resident of PI Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 16: Akit Medo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lomin Medo a permanent resident of Cooperative Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 17: Opang Tedo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Amin Tedo a permanent resident of PI Line Tuting PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 18: Chocha Tondrang Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Mobuk Tondrang a permanent resident of Rising Village PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Phuntsok Tashi Age: Occupation : a permanent resident of Lali Village PO and PS Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 5/24 VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Secretary/ Commissioner Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner cum Land Acquisition Authority Age: 0 Occupation : Yingkiong PO and PS Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : of board member for conducting ground survey Tuting Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : National Highways and Infrastructure Development Company 1st and 2nd Floor Tower A Worlds Trade Centre Nauroji Nagar New Delhi 110029 6:The Managing Director Age: 0 Occupation : National Highways and infrastructure Development Company 1st and 2nd Floor Tower A World Trade Centre Nauroji Nagar New Delhi 11002 Page No.# 6/24 Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Honi Tana Tara,K Gao,Kirpi Nyorak,Phurpa Wangmu,Nani Kuru,Karmu Chotton Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), R B Yadav BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND JUDGMENT For the Petitioners :Ms. N. Danggen, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate Mr.R.B.Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL. Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.10.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) The petitioners in this case have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned Land Compensation Assessment Report prepared by ADC- cum- Chairman, Land Compensation Assessment in pursuance to impugned Order No. YKLM 179/2024/53 dated 25.01.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.In this case, 1. the State of Page No.# 7/24 Arunachal represented by the Secretary/Commissioner Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, 2. The Director, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, 3. The Deputy Commissioner- cum- land Acquisition Authority, Yingkiong, PO/PS: Yingkiong, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman of board member for conducting ground survey, Tuting, Upper Siang District, Pradesh. 5. The Secretary, National Highways and Infrastructure Development Company, (NHIDCL for short), 6. The Managing Director, NHIDCL are arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 6 respectively. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. N. Danggen for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General and Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. R. B. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL. 3. The petitioners are permanent residents of different villages under Tuting, Upper Siang District. It is submitted that a speaking order No. YKLM 179/2024/53 dated 25.01.2024 was issued directing DLR & SO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, to proceed with land acquisition process of Tuting-Zido Road, NH913 (Frontier Highway) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013, in short). The Deputy Commissioner drafted preliminary notification for land acquisition of 51.147 (Hectares) and land, and had sent the same to the Director of land management vide forwarding letter No. YKLM- 179/2024/106 dated 19.02.2024 and accordingly,a Notification was issued vide order No. LMD-12/2024/2141 dated 29.02.2024, requiring 51.147 hectares of land for construction of intermediate lane road from Tuting to Zido, under Tuting Sub-Division, Upper Siang district for a stretch of 0.000 kms to 13.080 kms of Page No.# 8/24 Tuting Zido section on NH-913. 4. It is submitted that survey was conducted on 11th, 12th and 13th May, 2024 over the petitioners’ land and a manipulated and erroneous assessment report was prepared and finalized by the Land Compensation Assessment Board, in an apathetic manner, on the instructions of some groups with vested interests. The grievance of the land owners against this conduct fell on deaf ears. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner disagreed to deal with the same and advised them to take recourse to the Court. 5. It is averred that the minute details of the project have been kept away from the public during the course of assessment of the land compensation. The petitioners have thus not accepted the compensation as the same was prepared without including the valuation of genuine assets standing over the land as per the provision under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. 6. The other issue raised in this case is that the genuine properties were surveyed, but kept in Compensation Oriented Structure (COS) list. Some of the structures were erected several years ago and some old structures were renovated, but it has been erroneously concluded that the renovated structures were erected for the purpose of compensation. 7. A public hearing was also not conducted by the respondent authorities under the provision of the Act of 2013, preventing any issues to be raised, had there been any issues at all. 8. It is contended that the respondent authorities have decided in an unjustified manner that the properties and assets of the petitioners as COS properties without any finding. The petitioners then tried to collect details of Page No.# 9/24 findings/proceedings from the office of the DLRSO which led to the respondent authorities to consider 20-30 years old assets and properties as COS, but no information was provided to the petitioners. It is also averred that the petitioners learnt from reliable sources that the award was passed but the award was never published. When the petitioners sought information about the award, no information was provided and the petitioners had no details of the award passed by the respondent authorities. 9. It is also contended that evading the provision of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, the respondent authorities have adopted uniform rates for land acquisition which is illegal, as the acquisition was initiated by invoking the provisions of 2013 Act. (i) It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 (Chainage No. 1736 to 1920) had constructed RCC brick wall in the year 2020. This plot of land is located near Tuting township area, a kilometer away from the town area. (ii) Then petitioner No. 2 has a commercial building constructed with wood, bamboo and cement and he was running a shop in the building. This construction at the commercial plot is of high valuation, but whimsically, the rate has been fixed at Rs.200 (Rupees Two Hundred) per sq.mtr inspite of the fact that the rate would be more than Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per sq.meter in such an area. (iii) It is also averred that the petitioner no.3 (Chanaige No. 10702 to 10768) has a WRC field and the said WRC field is surrounded by a stone wall to protect the field from animals and this wall was built before his first son was born in the year 1989. The wall was renovated by cement plastering as the wall was about to collapse due to water leakage which is evident from the photograph annexed Page No.# 10/24 as Annexure-7. It had never occurred to the petitioner no.3 that a highway would be constructed through his land. It is also mentioned that the stone wall of his neighbor, namely, Sri Beni Peyang (Chainage No. 10740 to 10798) has been considered for payment and this wall was constructed at a much later stage. (iv) Another petitioner i.e. petitioner no.4 (Chainage No. 993 to 1093) had constructed a retaining wall in the month of March 2023 to protect his land from landslide as some portion of the land was loosening. This wall was also surprisingly listed in the COS list. He was informed about the survey in a matter of three days. (v) The petitioner no.5 had a farmhouse since 1970s (Chainage No. 2230 to 2320). This farm house was built for WRC field for resting and cooking. It has been emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that it is common practice for the local people to build a farm house in the WRC field for cooking and resting. Periodically, the said farm house was renovated time and again. Coining the same farm house as 'COS' is arbitrary and condemnable. The WRC field is one of the important sources of income in the Tuting area, which is adjacent to the township. (vi) Irrigation canal in petitioner No. 6’s property was built before 2022 but, the same has been kept in the COS list. (vii) So is the case of the petitioner no.9 (Chainage No. 1131 to 1218) who had constructed a farm house and the fish pond in the year 2023 before the notification was issued for acquisition, but the fish pond has been kept in the COS list and the farm house of the petitioner (OBT House) has not even been considered for COS category. The respondent authorities were keen to acquire Page No.# 11/24 4100 Sq. meters of land of petitioner no.9 for a price of Rs.4,10,000/- only which is much below the current valuation of the land. (viii) The petitioner no.10 (Chainage No.2123 to 2165), the petitioner no.11 (Chainage No.2165 to 2230) and the petitioner no.14 have properties which are similar in nature to the other petitioners. The assets of these petitioners have not been properly surveyed and consequentially, the number of fruit bearing L/Cardamom trees were counted as 21, whereas in reality, there were more than 100 fruit bearing trees. The petitioner no.14 has thus prayed for re-survey for the interest of justice. (ix) The petitioner nos.12 and 13 have more than two thousand bamboo growing but, unfortunately, 901 bamboo was assessed for compensation for the petitioner no.12 and 200 for the petitioner no.13 at the rate of Rs.22 whereas the Market Price is not less than Rs.150/-. Every year, the petitioners earned Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- by selling bamboo from their land. (x) The property of petitioner no.15 (Chainage No.11981 to 12120) has not been properly assessed for compensation as semi-RCC building has been recorded as OBT house. His wooden godown and the RCC graveyard of his father have not been estimated for compensation. (xi) The petitioner no.16 (Chainage No.1700 to 1736), petitioner no.17 (Chainage No.1736 to 2157), and the petitioner no.18 (Chainage No.1975 to 2047) have prayed for a direction to comply with Section 26 of the Act of 2013 as their plots of land are located only 1 km away from Tuting township. The retaining wall constructed by the petitioner no.16 has been listed in the COS list whereas the wall was built about 25 years ago. (xii) It is further contended that the petitioner no.19 has a plot of land Page No.# 12/24 bordering the Tuting township area, wherein she has built an OBT house for commercial purpose by investing more than Rs.9,00,000/- for construction of a shop, but only Rs.13,00,000/- has been assessed including the valuation of the land. (xiii) Another petitioner i.e. petitioner no.22 is running a shop at a village by constructing the same after investing more than Rs.2,00,000/- whereas the total compensation of the OBT shop was assessed at Rs.70,000/-. 10. It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent Authority has adopted uniformity of land-rate irrespective of town area and remote location and this has deprived the petitioners from receiving fair compensation as per Section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is averred that since the Land acquisition proceeding has been conducted under urgency clause i.e., Section 40 of the Act of 2013, the petitioners are even entitled to get additional compensation under sub-section 5 of Section 40. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the primary Authority responsible for the Arunachal Frontier Highway (NH-913) is the NHIDCL, a Central Government undertaking under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH for short) the question of affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security and strategic interest of the State or relation with Foreign State would not arise. Moreover, when there are no stakeholders opposing the land acquisition for a road, invoking urgency clauses are clearly intended to exercise the provision of statutory benefits to the petitioners which are framed under the Act of 2013. 11. It is averred that the Board members did not follow the proper procedure and arbitrarily decided that the properties of the petitioners are COS properties. The petitioners are highly prejudiced because the properties which are as old as 30 years, 10 years, 3 years and more than a year before the issuance of notification cannot be included in the COS list. It has been reiterated that the Page No.# 13/24 erection of walls have been for the purpose to protect the land from landslide and animals. The respondent never disclosed alignment of road to the properties of the petitioners, and only within 3 days before conducting survey, petitioners were informed and thus there is no question of erecting any so- called COS structures as claimed by the respondents. 12. The petitioners have already agitated against such inclusion of the properties in the COS list before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tuting, but there has been no response from the ADC. It is contended that with malafide, the total required land was assessed and notification was issued by the Government Vide notification No. LMD-12/1/2024/2141 and the area of acquisition has been reduced from 51.147 hectares (511470 Sqms) to 43.647 hectares (436470 Sqms) at the last stage of the acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, with respect to the land acquisition of the Tuting to Zido road stretching from 0.00 Kms to 13.08 Kms. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents have compromised with the aims and objectives of the Act of 2013 and it is most likely to encroach upon the petitioners land during the construction of the highways, if this deduction is permitted. So this illegal action of the respondent Authority may also be looked into for the interest of justice. 13. It is contended that the petitioners learnt from reliable sources that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, did not even know about the exact alignment of the highways as it was prepared by the NHIDCL. It is submitted that during the time of survey in some areas, the employees of the land department had included even gorge areas for acquisition where roads are impossible to be constructed. When the Authority was confronted about including such gorges within the National Highway, then they tried to justify through their answer that, "the alignment of the road was prepared by NHIDCL from satellite image without Page No.# 14/24 physically visiting the area". Thus the petitioners are apprehensive that some more of their land may be included to construct the National Highway by the respondent Authorities without proper compensation. 14. It is also averred that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner did not even follow the procedures under the Act of 2013 and have erroneously assessed a lower compensation for plots of land which are near the town area or within the town area. It is submitted that as their assets have been assessed at a very low rate for compensation, they have not accepted the compensation and the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong. Similarly circumstanced residents have already received the compensation in the month of August, 2025. 15. The petitioners have prayed to set aside the impugned land compensation assessment report prepared by ADC-cum-Chairman, land compensation assessment in pursuance to the impugned order dated YKLM-179/2024/53 dated 25.01.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong and for a writ to be issued for fresh land compensation assessment of the petitioners with complete transparency and fairness and directing the respondents to strictly follow the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013 along with additional compensation under Section 40(5) of the Act of 2013. 16. Through the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and through the oral submission on behalf of all the respondents, it is submitted that the averments of the petitioners that after a survey conducted on 11, 12 and 13th May, 2024, erroneous and manipulated land compensation assessment report was prepared and finalized by the Board for the two-lane road from Tuting to Zido, is absolutely false and misleading. It is averred that Page No.# 15/24 when survey was conducted by the Board member constituted by the ADC, Upper Siang, vide letter dated 19.03.2024 for assessment of land, assets were falling within ROW. The joint survey was carried out w.e.f., 11.05.2024, and completed on 17.05.2024, and the estimate was prepared based on ground realities, by the District Administration. 17. The respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and also the other respondents have categorically denied that the Authority had skirted the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013 while issuing public notice dated 08.11.2024, under provision of Section 21(1) of the Act of 2013. It has been emphasized through the argument on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 that the petitioners do not deserve any additional compensation under Section 40(5) of the Act of 2013, as the project is one that affects the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security and strategic interest of the State or relations with Foreign States. The project was declared as strategic linear project of national importance concerning national security by the Ministry of Defence vide Office Memorandum dated 22.08.2024. It is also averred on behalf of the respondents that the entire Frontier highway, NH-913, stretching to a length of 1748 Kms was entrusted to three different agencies i.e., State PWD, BRO and NHIDCL vide MoRTH Office memorandum dated 03.04.2023, and out of 1748 Kms of the stretch 636 Kms of length was entrusted to NHIDCL. Therefore, NHIDCL is not the only primary Authority responsible for the Arunachal Frontier highway. 18. The respondents through their affidavit and through their oral submission have categorically denied the contention that the total required land issued by the Government vide preliminary notification No. LMD-12/1/2024/2141 has been reduced from 51.47 hectares to 43.647 hectares at last stage of the acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, with respect to land acquisition of the Page No.# 16/24 Tuting-Zido road for 0.00 Kms to 13.08 Kms. 19. On the other hand, it is submitted that the State Government had published preliminary notification vide notification dated 29.02.2024, for 51.147 hectares of land including Muck dumping locations for acquisition for the construction of Tuting-Zido road project. However, the land estimate for 43.647 hectares was submitted to Director of Land management excluding five muck dumping locations and estimate for balance 7.50 hectares of land was under preparation at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang. It is denied on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, that NHIDCL had prepared the alignment and the other respondents were not privy to the exact alignment of the National highway road. 20. On the contrary, it is submitted that the alignment was prepared by DPR (Detailed Project Report) consultant based on detailed ground service and LiDAR (Light detection and ranging) technology. The alignment was subsequently reviewed and approved by the MoRTH in consultation with the MHA and Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Accordingly, tenders for civil work were invited through the CPP portal with robust technical qualification criteria under EPC (Engineering, procurement and construction) contracts. The EPC contractor is being finalized strictly based on demonstrated experience and expertise in executing EPC projects. In addition, a team of authorities, engineers comprising of experienced experts was deployed during construction to monitor and supervise the quality and execution of highway works there. Finally, it is also emphasised through the argument that all the provisions of the Act of 2013 were followed by the District administration. 21. It is argued on behalf of the State, the Director of Land Management and the Deputy Commissioner, i.e., respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, and on behalf of Page No.# 17/24 other respondents that it has been falsely alleged that the assessment report was erroneously prepared and manipulated. It is submitted that the survey of the land and the preparation of the land compensation were made in presence of public/landowners. Assets were surveyed and recorded including the Compensation Oriented structure (COS). Some of the properties were marked as COS because it was genuinely found to be COS as the properties were newly constructed properties. The respondents have vehemently denied that the Authority has adopted the uniform rate of land but it is emphasized through the argument that the Authority had followed the Manual for Land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh, 2022 (Manual of 2022 for short) as well as Section 26 of the Act of 2013. 22. The respondents laid stress in their arguments that the property of petitioner No. 1 comes under COS list, and it has been duly verified as such by the survey team. The respondents have categorically denied all the averments in the writ petition that land has been acquired for construction of the Tuting-Zido Road. It is also submitted that along with petitioner Nos. 7, 20 & 21, the petitioner No. 8 has also submitted the deed of acceptance for compensation for the land acquired and have already received the compensation amount. It has been emphasized through the argument that the respondent Authority has fixed the rate of the property as per market value and also according to the rate provided under the Manual for Land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh, 2022 and as per the statutory provisions. The respondents have denied any malafide on their part. 23. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have also concurred to the submissions on behalf of the other respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Further, it is submitted that the entire process of land acquisition has smoothly progressed. All the respondents Page No.# 18/24 have submitted to dismiss the petition as this petition is bereft of merits. 24. The argument submitted on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents have been elaborately discussed in the foregoing discussions. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the properties of the petitioners can be enlisted in the COS list. It is to be borne in mind that respondents have stressed on the fact that the Tuting-Zido road is an international border highway road, and an intermediate lane is proposed to be constructed after the acquisition of the petitioners land and land of other land owners. Annexure-1 to the petition is the speaking order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong. Annexure- 2 series is the preliminary notification for land acquisition for the construction of the intermediate lane road at Tuting-Zido section. It also includes the forwarding of the acquisition letter received from the General Manager (Admin and LA) of NHIDCL, Itanagar, for the acquisition of 51.147 hectares of land for construction of the intermediate lane road. The draft preliminary notification duly signed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11(1) read with Section 40(1) of the Act of 2013 was also forwarded along with the forwarding. The preliminary notification in the Annexure-II series is relating to construction of the intermediate lane from 0.000 Kms to 13.080 Kms, and the Tuting-Zido section on NH-913 for Frontier Highway. The Deputy Commissioner along with his staff was authorized by the Government to enter upon and survey the land under Section 12 of the Act. 25. The petitioners are basically aggrieved, as allegedly, the respondents have skirted the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is alleged that the market value was not taken into consideration. Although the respondents have vehemently denied that the survey was not properly conducted by the Page No.# 19/24 Department of Survey, yet the respondents have not annexed any market valuation of the land acquired for construction of the intermediate lane alongwith the three affidavits that have been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The market valuation of the land have been submitted by the petitioners through the annexures marked as Annexure- VI series upto Annexure- XVIII series. 26. It has not been clarified by the respondents through their argument as well as through the affidavit-in-opposition, on what basis they have held the land of the petitioners to be in the COS list. An omnibus statement has been made that the petitioners have constructed new structures over their land after the preliminary notification to procure the advantage of the compensation. This preliminary notification was issued on 29.02.2024, and the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, vide letter dated 19.02.2024 forwarded the draft preliminary notification for acquisition of land. The resondents have specifically alleged that the petitioner No.1’s construction definitely falls in COS list. 27. The Annexure-I series of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 23.02.2026 submitted by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 includes the public notice which clearly describes the area of land required for acquisition and also the area of land which has been left out as muck disposal at Column-3 of the Public notice dated 29.04.2025. Public notices dated 21.04.2025 and 29.04.2025 are marked as Annexure-I series. It is submitted that the Annexure-I series will clarify the requirement of the land for the intermediate lane of Tuting-Zido road. 28. A close scrutiny of the notifications reveal that certain portions of land required to be acquired for the intermediate lane is also required for Muck dumping locations. The land required to be acquired for the intermediate parts of the project including mines and minerals which may be required to be dug or Page No.# 20/24 removed or used during construction phase of the project purpose of the land was being acquired and no mines, mineral, iron, stone, slate and other minerals lying under the said land had to be extracted or removed. Thus the plan of the land survey was proposed to be inspected in the Office of the Collector, DLR & SO, Upper Siang District. It was also decided that no additional compensation as per Section 40(5) of the Act of 2013 was to be paid for acquisition of the land as this road affects the sovereignty and security of the State. 29. It was also notified that on expiration of 30 days from the date of notification, despite award being not made, the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) would take possession of the land acquired for the purpose of the road. These are the only notifications annexed with the affidavit-in- opposition submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 30. The petitioners are aggrieved as the valuation was according to the Manual for Land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh, 2022, whereas the respondents have laid stress through their arguments that the Manual for Land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh, 2022 is an exact replica of the Act of 2013. The respondents have emphasized through their arguments that the petitioners have not been prejudiced. 31. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations that the land of the petitioners fall within the COS list are absolutely false as the land over which action after the preliminary notification is alleged to have been taken are mostly lands adjacent to the township area of higher valuation and the constructions (as alleged) were not erected after the preliminary notification or any other notification by the respondents for acquisition of land, but the walls and other enclosures were constructed, much earlier. Page No.# 21/24 32. It is true that the valuation is included in the Manual of 2022 and the Manual was prepared after including the applicability of the Act of 2013. The Manual of 2022 shall be applicable for all land acquisitions under the Act of 2013. It therefore appears that the provisions under Section 26 of the Act of 2013 is to be followed. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that no documents relating to any public hearing for acquisition of land has been submitted. Some documents relating to the valuation to be paid to the petitioners has been submitted by the petitioners. This makes it difficult for this Court to arrive at a conclusion whether the valuation of the properties of the petitioners have been correctly assessed. Annexure-VI series to Annexure-XVI series are certain photographs and specifications of construction of certain walls, structures, sheds and buildings, which clearly depicts that those structures were not newly constructed structures. They appear to be old and definitely not for the purpose of procuring the benefits of compensation. 33. It is true that at this stage, as submitted by the respondents, a Writ Court cannot go into the evidence and assess the age of the structures, walls and buildings, etc., to agree with the valuation provided by the respondents with regard to the petitioners for acquisition of the land. It would be apt to reiterate that Annexure-VI series to Annexure-XVIII series includes the photographs of the walls or other structures of some of the petitioners along with the estimated compensation of the properties of the petitioners. 34. Most of the similarly circumstanced land owners have accepted and received the compensation. As the petitioners are genuinely aggrieved, they have not accepted the compensation. The documents annexed along with the writ petition reveals the rate of the assets vis-a-vis the market valuation. It appears that a direction can be given to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to Page No.# 22/24 consider the case of the petitioners as per the Act of 2013. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Behenso Pul and 28 Ors in WP © No.249/2024 wherein vide order dated 07.04.2026, it has been held that; “10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihin Laling (supra), vide judgment dated 16.09.2025, has clearly laid down that the provisions of the Act of 2013 should be applied for assessing fair compensation. In the said case, the aspect of payment of solatium and interest has also been highlighted. 11. Section 24 of the Act, more specifically the proviso to Sub section (2), would show that compensation, even if assessed as per the earlier Act and has not been deposited shall be converted to compensation as per the Act of 2013. The intention of the legislation of 2013 is to ensure that fair and proper compensation is paid to the land affected persons and that nobody is deprived of their due entitlement. There are various other aspects in the Act of 2013, including solatium and interest, which would also have to form part of the Award, including those mentioned in Schedule I of the Act. 12. The determination of the rate of Rs. 11 per square metre prima facie appears to be absolutely on the lower side and cannot be treated as fair compensation, more so when the materials on record suggest that for adjoining areas, higher rates have been determined. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the entire assessment has to be done afresh by taking into consideration all the relevant factors, including the rates applied for acquisition of land in the adjoining areas, provided such acquisitions have been made during the contemporaneous period. It is also needless to state that all other provisions of 2013 Act, which have been incorporated for the benefits of the land affected persons are to be taken into consideration while assessing and determining the rate to be paid to the land affected persons.” 35. The respondent authority has failed to refute the allegations of the petitioners that the public or the petitioners were not heard before the Page No.# 23/24 properties were acquired for construction of the intermediate lane. It is not clear from the submissions of the respondents whether the petitioners were heard before the properties were acquired. It would also be apt to reiterate that the respondent nos.2,3 and 4 have denied in an omnibus manner that they have included the structures and properties of all the petitioners as COS structures with malafide. It is apparent that the respondents have specifically alleged that the petitioner no.1’s structure is a COS structure, whereas the respondents have not specifically mentioned how and in what manner the structures of the other petitioners are COS structures or properties. Although they have specifically alleged that petitioner no.1’s structure is a COS structure, yet they have not demonstrated in what manner the petitioner no.1’s structure was branded as COS structure. 36. It has been agreed by the respondents that the entire Act of 2013 has been included in the Manual of 2022. Therefore, the case of the petitioners can be considered by the respondents for awarding compensation to the petitioners as per the Act of 2013. This Court cannot be oblivious of the submission of the petitioners that they were not allowed even three days time by the respondents, who proceeded with the acquisition of land and this makes it impossible for them to erect Construction Oriented Structures so as to avail the benefits of compensation. 37. The petitioners have submitted, through their arguments as well as in their petition, that they have approached the ADC against the meagre compensation awarded to them, but the ADC did not deal with the same. If any representation of the petitioners is pending before the ADC, the ADC may also consider the case of the petitioners. It has also to be borne in mind that most of the petitioners have claimed that their land acquired by the Government for Page No.# 24/24 construction of the intermediate lane is in close proximity to the township area and is of much higher valuation than evaluated by the respondents. 38. This Court would also like to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh and another Vs. Mihin Laling and others, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1770, wherein vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the provisions of the Act of 2013 should be applied for assessing fair compensation. This Court, in Behenso Pul and 28 others (supra), has also observed that, in the case of Mihin Laling (supra), the aspect of payment of solatium and interest as per the Act of 2013 has also been highlighted. 39. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mihin Laling (supra) and the decision of this Court in Behenso Pul (supra), this writ petition is partly allowed by remanding the matter to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District (respondent No. 3), Arunachal Pradesh, to consider the case of the petitioners and provide compensation following the provisions of the 2013 Act. This Court has taken note of the submission on behalf of the petitioners that their representation has not been considered by the respondent No. 4, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tuting. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider any pending representation of the petitioners. The entire process shall be undertaken and completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant