Page No.# 1/20 GAHC040012562023 2026:GAU-AP:309 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/451/2023 Sindica Welfare Society (SWS) and 11 Ors. represented by its Chairman Shri Tengari Linggi, S/o Gane Linggi, R/o Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Shri Dingu Linggi Age: Occupation : S/o Tengari Linggi R/o Simari-II P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Shri Iho Pulu Age: Occupation : S/o Jatan Pulu R/o Yibuk P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Shri Deho Pulu Age: Occupation : S/o Jatan Pulu R/o Yibuk P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Shri Kotri Menjo Age: Occupation : R/o Chidu P.O/P.S Roing Page No.# 2/20 Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Ms. Unti Menjo Age: Occupation : R/o Chidu P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Shri Shan Dele Age: Occupation : R/o Chidu P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Shri Ram Dele Age: Occupation : R/o Chidu P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Smti Mila Linggi Age: Occupation : R/o Iduli P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Smti Jamela Linggi Age: Occupation : R/o Mayu-II P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Smti Mila Linggi Age: Occupation : R/o Mayu-II P.O/P.S Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Shri Dela Mena Age: Occupation : R/o Bizari Page No.# 3/20 P.O/P.S Dambuk Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Others Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : (Land Management) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Collector Age: 0 Occupation : Lower Dibang Valley Roing. 4:Andome Elapra Iluli Welfare Society Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman Shri Atige Elapra S/o Lt. D. Elapra R/o Iduli P/s Roing Lower Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Ms. Pretty Elapra Age: 0 Occupation : Society Andome Elapra Iluli Welfare Society R/o Iduli Po/Ps Roing Lower Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Taja Garam, P Siga Advocate for the Respondent : , Tao Tarin,Binter Picha,Jumgam Jini,T T Tara,GA (AP) Page No.# 4/20 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN JUDGMENT 27.03.2026 Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. In this petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings, initiated vide preliminary notification dated 27.08.2013; issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act hereinafter); final notification dated 14.12.2014, issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act; and the notice dated 25.01.2016, issued under Section 9 of the 1894 Act. Further, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount of compensation paid to the private respondents by freezing their accounts. Background Facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:- “In the year 2002, the Government of India, through the Ministry of Power, handed over the 2880 MW Dibang Valley Multipurpose Project to National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC hereinafter) for execution of the project. Thereafter, the NHPC had conducted a survey and prepared Maps/Areas/Locations and list of the project affected families, without any Page No.# 5/20 joint verification with the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Roing (DC hereinafter), who is the Land Settlement Officer. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.11.2009, the NHPC had submitted a proposal to the DC, for issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. While sending the proposal, the NHPC, vide letter dated 15.03.2010, had also submitted a sample notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Then, the DC had observed certain errors in the report of the NHPC and accordingly, ordered to rectify the map, circulars dated 07.09.2011 and 01.08.2012. Thereafter, the NHPC prepared a revised map. Thereafter, the Secretary (Land Management), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Notification dated 27.08.2013, had issued a preliminary Notification, under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, whereby it is notified that the Government is acquiring about 1628.441 hectares of land for the company, namely NHPC Limited (Government of India Enterprises), for execution of Dibang Multipurpose Project. In the said notification, the landed property of the petitioners is shown at serial numbers 9 & 11. Thereafter, before any further formalities could be conducted, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (LARR Act hereinafter) was brought into force, w.e.f. 01.01.2014, vide notification No. S. O 0729 (E), dated 19.12.2013. In the said Act, Section 24 provides that the Land Acquisition initiated under the Old Act deemed to have lapsed, if no award under Page No.# 6/20 Section 11 have been made or award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act or the compensation has not been paid. In the instant case, though the initiation proceeding comes under the Old Act, however, the respondent authorities, vide final notification dated 04.12.2014, under Section 6 of the 1894 Act; vide notice dated 25.01.2016, under Section 9 of the 1894 Act; and vide notice dated 22.03.2016, had issued a circular for final hearing for determination of land ownership and the hearing for the petitioners’ area was fixed on 18.04.2016. In response to the same, the private respondents had stacked a bogus claim, against which, objections were filed and ultimately, the civil suits were filed. However, during pendency of the civil suits, the compensation amount was paid to the private respondents in the year 2021, which demonstrate that the proceeding is without jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court, by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 452(AP)/ 2022 and the same was disposed of on 24.11.2021, with liberty to file a fresh.” Then the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondent No. 3, the DC, has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the letter dated 16.04.2016, received from Andome Elapra Clan, in respect of the area presently being claimed by the petitioners, vide following letters/representations:- (i) Letter from Atige Elapra, dated 14.06.2010, claiming ownership over Iluli and Epali; (ii) Representation dated 24.10.2011, claiming ownership over right and Page No.# 7/20 left bank of river Ilu in response to the circular issued on 07.09.2011; (iii) Representations dated 19.09.2011 and 18.10.2021, praying for inclusion in Iluli and claiming ownership of area over Iluli; (iv) Representation dated 16.04.2016, claiming ownership over 177.663 hectares of land and 76.50 hectares of land for area listed at serial Nos. 9 & 11 of the Notification, under Section 9 of the 1894 Act; and (v) No Objection Certificates (NOC hereinafter) dated 18.04.2016, certifying the ownership of 177.663 hectares of land and 76.50 hectares of land by Andome Elapra Clan for areas listed at serial Nos. 9 & 11 of the Notification issued by Mamuni Menjo, Muni Menjo, Jameta Elapra, Drai Linggi, Apodi Menjo, Tengari Linggi and Pike Pulu. These NOCs were specific in respect of nomenclature, area, location and size of the area listed at serial Nos. 9 & 11 of the Notifications belonged to Andome Elapra Clan. The petitioner No. 1 was one of the individuals who had issued the NOC certifying the claim and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the matter came to light only in the year 2021 is misleading. 4.1. It is also stated that Andome Elapra Clan was not the only community that submitted their claims over the area listed at serial Nos. 9 & 11. Claims were also received from the following:- (i) Narko Linggi and party, vide letter dated 08.08.2011; (ii) Junti Linggi and party, vide letter dated 13.09.2010; Page No.# 8/20 (iii) Narko Linggi and party; vide letter dated 07.09.2008; (iv) Narko Linggi, vide letter dated 08.10.2012; (v) Bota Mimi and party, vide letter dated 24.12.2011; (vi) Junti Linggi and party, vide letter dated 22.09.2011; (vii) Junti Linggi and party, vide letter dated 12.02.2016; (viii) Wuti Mimi, vide letter dated 18.04.2016; (ix) Bota Mimi and party, vide letter dated 19.03.2013; (x) Bota Mimi and party, vide letter dated 28.12.2013; (xi) Junti Linggi, vide letter dated 12.02.2016; (xii) Tisa Linggi, vide letter dated 29.11.2016; (xiii) Ramesh Linggi, vide letter dated 10.02.2016 and 11.02.2016; and (xiv) Shri Narko Linggi, vide letter dated 12.02.2016. 4.2. It is also stated that the claims, so received, were informed to all members during the course of the meeting and the members themselves agreed to share the ownership of the land and the same was submitted vide two letters dated 21.04.2016 and 11.05.2016, by Narko Lingii and Junti Linggi, respectively. 4.3. It is further stated that the notice, under Section 9 of the 1894 Act, was issued on 25.01.2016, so that all persons interested to stake their claim and interest and vide letter date 06.02.2017, pertaining to the report submitted by CO(LM) subsequent hearings were called. As such, the petitioners’ claimed that Page No.# 9/20 none of the actual landowners or representatives of the Clan members were present is entirely false. The attendance sheet clearly indicates that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were present in the meeting (serial Nos. 36 & 58) for Iluli upstream and left bank of Ilu Pani area (serial Nos. 9 & 11) as per schedule in the circular. But no objection was submitted by the petitioners during the course of the meeting. 4.4. It is also stated that the representations of the petitioners claiming ownership of the land notified at serial Nos. 9 & 11 was received vide letter dated 30.03.2021 and the objection to the maps was received on 16.04.2021. These claims were received five years after the conduct of final hearing under Section 9 of the 1894 Act and two years after the State Government has accorded approval to the award, vide letter dated 22.02.2019. 4.5. Further, it is submitted that the proposed area of their lands remained unchanged, lacks clarity, as to which particular parcel of the land they are referring. The de-notification under Section 48 of the 1894 Act includes a column which shows the area that had been notified and another column shows the extent of the area that is being de-notified. And that this petition pertains to the lands mentioned at serial Nos. 9 & 11 as indicated in the de-notification and as such, the area of Iluli upstream had been reduced by 36.939 hectares and the left bank of Ilu Pani area has been reduced by 3.5 hectares. 4.6. It is also stated that in W.P.(C) No. 170(AP)/2020, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the competent civil court and as per direction of this Court, dated 01.11.2021, passed in IA(Civil) No. 90/2021, the project affected families, which were not arrayed as a party in the said writ petition, compensations were disbursed to them. Page No.# 10/20 4.7. Another stand taken by the respondent No. 3 that an application was filed before the Collector/DC to refer the case, under Section 64 of the LARR Act. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 himself signed the final list of project affected families belonged to the Sindica community, on 03.01.2017 and that no objection was received from any of the petitioners claiming any misrepresentation of area of nomenclature during the rectification process and during the subsequent notification period, under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the 1894 Act, NOCs or claims were received from the petitioners pertaining to the map, nomenclature or size of the areas listed at serial Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the Notification. 5.1. It is also stated that none of the individuals or communities, who had submitted representations for other areas and attended the Section 5 of the 1894 Act hearings objected to the land being taken for acquisition and NOCs or claims were received from the petitioners in response to the notice, under Section 4 of the 1894 Act regarding the acquisition, nomenclature, area or boundary description, especially concerning serial Nos. 9 & 11 and under Section 6 of the 1894 Act final Notification was issued on 14.12.2014, after compliance of procedures of Sections 4 & 5 of the 1894 Act, since no individual, community or organization had objected to the acquisition of land. And during the Section 9 of the 1894 Act proceeding also, the petitioners neither submitted any claims nor any objection to the acquisition, nomenclature or size of land listed at serial Nos. 9 & 11 and they have neither submitted specific objection or claim in respect of the area now being claimed under serial Nos. 9 & 11 of the notification nor there was any objection to the terms ‘Iluli’ and ‘Iluli’ being used instead of ‘Andambu Meyapa’. Page No.# 11/20 5.2. It is also stated that the petitioners have acknowledged the entire process undertaken by the District Administration in 2011 – 2012 to rectify date, determine claims and facilitate arrangements among parties/clans/communities and now they cannot claim that they are unaware of the notified areas under serial Nos. 9 & 11. 5.3. Further, it is stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 attended the meeting for Sindica and staked their claim during the final hearing for all the areas under acquisition were held in response to claims and objections received under Section 9 of the 1894 Act and subsequently, the draft award, under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, was referred to the Government and the Government approved the same, vide order dated 22.02.2019. 5.4. Another stand taken by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is that the petitioners had filed one title suit, being Title Suit No. 07/2021, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roing (trial court hereinafter) and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 29.03.2022, citing provisions under Section 63 of the LARR Act. Thereafter, against the order of the learned trial court, the petitioners approached the learned reference court by filing an application under Section 64 of the LARR Act. However, during the course of hearing, the learned reference court, upon consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, observed that the petitioners had not filed any application or representation before the competent authority, i.e. the DC, as required under Section 64(1) of the LARR Act and thereafter, the petitioners had withdrawn the same. 5.5. Further, it is stated that the present writ petition is clear abuse of process of law, being filed by suppressing fact and deliberate attempt to make multiple Page No.# 12/20 claims and no cause of action survives in favour of the petitioners and therefore, this petition is liable to the dismissed. 6. The petitioners have submitted their reply denying the statements and averments made by the respondent authorities in their affidavits-in-opposition. Submissions:- 7. Mr. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have now challenged the order passed by the learned reference court, dated 31.08.2022, wherein the learned reference court had misinterpreted the provision of Section 64 of the LARR Act and that the conducting counsel for the petitioners never wanted to withdraw the petition, but the same was put into his month and thereafter, the order was passed. Mr. Yobin further submits that in view of the proviso to Section 64 of the LARR Act, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and as such, he has contended to set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 and to remand the matter to the learned reference court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 7.1. Mr. Yobin has pointed out that the petitioners, on 30.03.2021 and 16.04.2021, had complained to the DC regarding illegal inclusion of Andambu Meyappa Iluli area, under Elapra Hali and Mimi Shango. But, the DC has refused to act upon the same, rather he had issued an order on 09.07.2021, directing the petitioners to approach the civil court to decide the issue pertaining to title/ownership of the land. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred the title suit before the learned trial court and the learned trial court, vide order dated 29.03.2022, had dismissed the same on the ground that Section 63 of the LARR Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. Thereafter, the petitioners have Page No.# 13/20 approached the learned reference court, under Section 64 of the LARR Act, but the same was shown to be withdrawn, which is incorrect. 7.2. Further, Mr. Yobin submits that the petitioners have no remedy available and therefore, they have approached this Court by preferring this writ petition claiming the reliefs as stated above. However, he submits that now the petitioners have abandoned the relief(s) sought for in the petitioner and praying for moulding the relief and to set aside the order dated 31.08.2022, passed by the learned reference court and further to remand the matter to the learned reference court for proceeding with the complaint in accordance with law. 8. Per-contra, Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the petitioners were very much present at the time of hearing before issuance of the respective Notification under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the 1894 Act and that they have not raised any objection therein. Mr. Nabam further submits that when the final Notification was issued and the compensation was disbursed, then only in the year 2021 they have filed the application, without proper explanation. 8.1. Referring to the prayer made in the writ petition, Mr. Nabam submits that after filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, now the petitioners have sought for moulding the relief by challenging the order passed by the learned reference court and that such a relief cannot be granted by this Court. Mr. Nabam also submits that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, on the other hand, referring to the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, in Page No.# 14/20 their affidavit-in-opposition, submits that before issuance of the Notifications under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the 1894 Act, no complain was made and that the petitioners were very much present at the time of hearing, but at that time they have not raised any objection, instead they have submitted NOC and the said NOC has been enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition, at page No. 364. Mr. Jini also submits that the presence of the petitioners at the ti9me of hearing claims and objection, is duly reflected in page Nos. 364, 365 & 366 (the attendance sheet) and in the page Nos. 370 – 373 of the affidavit. 9.1. Mr. Jini further submits that the learned trial court has rightly held that the claim of title over the land, which the petitioners are claiming now, is not maintainable because of the bar under Section 63 of the LARR Act and that the petition filed by the petitioners before the learned reference court is also withdrawn by them and besides, there is disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this petition. 10. In his reply, Mr. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in view of the given facts and circumstances, the petitioners have sought for moulding the relief, instead of pursuing the earlier relief that were sought for in the petition, and now they are challenging the order passed by the learned reference court. 10.1. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kasinka Trading and Another vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 274, he submits that principle of estoppels is not attracted against the Government and the equity has to be kept in mind by the Page No.# 15/20 court and the doctrine of promissory estoppels or equitable estoppels represent a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. And since injustice is caused to the petitioners, the said doctrine is not applicable in the present case and as such, Mr. Yobin has contended to allow this petition. Consideration of this Court:- 11. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned Notification and the award. 12. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The land was acquired by the Government for execution of Dibang Valley Multipurpose Project, by the NHPC and under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the 1894 Act, Notifications were issued after hearing claims and objections of all the parties and the petitioners had also remained present at that time and also participated in the said process. This fact is apparent from the attendance sheet, enclosed with affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, at page Nos. 364, 365 & 366 and page Nos. 370 – 373, it appears that they were very much present at the time of hearing. Mr. Jini, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5 had rightly pointed this out at the time of hearing. And indisputably, they had not raised any objection at the time of hearing. Rather they have submitted NOC, and this fact is apparent from the Annexure 22, from page No. 403 to 409 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No.4 and 5. 12.1. Further it appears that after 5 years of final hearing under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act and after 2 years of according approval of the award by the State Government vide letter dated 22.02.2019, and also after disbursal of the compensation, they have lodged the complaint with the DC first on Page No.# 16/20 30.03.2021 and 16.04.2021. But, the same was not entertained by the DC on the ground that the award of land acquisition is sub-judice in W.P.(C) 170(AP)/2020 and also on the ground that there is no area termed as Mimi Shango in the acquisition process and that acquisition of land claimed as Elapra Illuli was taken up in the acquisition process and also on the ground that the claim put forth grounds pertains to matter of title/ownership, vide order dated 09.07.2021, Annexure No. 13 of the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner had granted liberty to the petitioners to take up the matter in the competent civil court. 12.2. It also appears that thereafter, though the petitioners have approached the court of learned Civil Judge, Roing, by filing title suit, being T.S. No. 07 of 2021, yet the same was also dismissed under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the CPC, as Section 63 of the LARR Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. 12.3. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the learned reference court, under Section 64 of the LARR Act, but the learned reference court in the order dated 31.08.2022, has observed that the petitioners have to file proper petition under Section 64 of LARR Act before the DC and then, the petitioners have withdrawn the said petition and now, the petitioners have challenged the order of the learned reference court, dated 31.08.2022 and contended to set it aside by moulding the relief and to refer the matter to the learned reference court again for proper adjudication. 13. It is to be noted here that though the petitioners have filed this writ petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, yet nowhere in the petition, they have made any challenge to the order dated 31.08.2022. Page No.# 17/20 13.1. However, a perusal of the said order reveals that the petitioners had withdrawn the said petition, when it was pointed out by the learned reference court that the petitioner have to file appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner, Roing for reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. But, indisputably, they petitioners had failed to file any application before the Deputy Commissioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were compelled to withdraw the petition from the reference court, though it was put in the mouth of the counsel of the petitioner, yet the same left this court unimpressed. 13.2. Section 64 deals with reference to Authority. Sub- Section (1) provides that :- Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may Page No.# 18/20 apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made— (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 13.4. Thus, a perusal of the second proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 64 indicates that there is no scope of filing a complaint directly before the reference authority. The party have to file application before the Deputy Commissioner first and the application must be pending before the Deputy Commissioner. When the Deputy Commissioner fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may request the reference Page No.# 19/20 authority, requesting it to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. Thus, the petitioner, without filing such application before the Deputy Commissioner approached the reference authority directly. 13.5. Thus, examining the order dated 31.08.2022, so passed by the reference authority, from the aforesaid stand points, it cannot be said that the same suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this court. 14. Further, in view of the stands, so taken by the state respondents, and also by the private respondents and also in view of the documents produced before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have suppressed material facts. They have not approached it with clean hand. It appears that they have participated in the hearing process before issuance of the notifications, under Section 4, 6 & 9 of the 1894 Act and also they have given NOC. And as such, their contention that they came to know about receipt of compensation by unknown person in the year 2021, while the final notification was published in the year 2019 and the compensation was disbursed, left this Court unimpressed. 15. It is true that this Court has the power to mould the relief though the relief has not prayed for as the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable in nature. But, it appears that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand. They have suppressed the material fact that they were unaware of the receipt of compensation by some unknown persons only in the year 2021 in spite of the NOC issued by them and in spite of their presence in the hearing, which is apparent from the attendance sheet, enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, at Page No.# 20/20 page Nos. 364, 365 & 366 (the attendance sheet) and in the page Nos. 370 – 373. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in equity. 16. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant