SMTI Tsering Chojom vs State Of AP & Ors

Heard Mr. O. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for State respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. G. Riba, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 9.

By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities for release of compensation in their favour as per the re-assessment valuation report, along with 100% solatium, in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Having considered that the issues involved in both these writ petitions are connected and similar on facts and law, same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that for construction of 2-lane Trans-Arunachal Highway from Balipara-Chardwar-Tawang (BCT), passing through Dirang Circle of West Kameng District, the district administration, along with representatives of 97 Road Construction Company (RCC), General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), had initially undertaken survey and assessment of the loss caused to the land and properties affected by the said project. On the basis of such assessment, compensation was determined and released to the petitioners and other land-affected persons. However, subsequently, on coming to know about the alleged irregularities in the valuation undertaken by the Compensation Board and upon obtaining the relevant valuation reports through applications under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners, along with the villagers, came across alleged discrepancies and undervaluation of their properties. Accordingly, the petitioners, along with certain affected persons, approached this Court by instituting WP(C) No. 153(AP)/2012, and WP(C) No. 154(AP)/2012, which were allowed and disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2012, whereby, inter alia, direction was issued for CBI inquiry and constitution of a fresh Compensation Board for correct assessment of the value of the properties.

Pursuant thereto, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Bomdila, for re-assessment of the valuation of buildings situated along the BCT Road under the Trans-Arunachal Highway in Dirang Sub-Division. Insofar as the petitioners in WP(C) No. 344/2019 are concerned, their properties fall within the chainage of 167.000 KM to 174.000 KM pertaining to Dirang village, whereas the properties of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 345/2019 fall within the chainage of 183.037 KM to 189.640 KM pertaining to Ramacamp and Sappercamp villages. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the re-assessment undertaken by the Committee was confined to the damages caused to the house properties and did not include solatium.

The petitioners contend that, meanwhile, the executing agency released additional amounts towards compensation for the respective stretches of the road to the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, Bomdila, which amounts were received by the authority concerned on 29.05.2017. Thereafter, the Secretary, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued notification dated 09.12.2017, declaring that the acquisition and compensation would be paid as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “RFCTLARR Act, 2013”).

It is the case of the petitioners that despite the re-assessment of the properties, the compensation determined on such re-assessment was not uniformly released to all the affected persons. In WP(C) No. 344/2019, the petitioner No. 5 was paid the amount determined on re-assessment, but without the benefit of 100% solatium. The remaining petitioners in the said writ petition were not paid the compensation determined on re-assessment. In WP(C) No. 345/2019, the petitioners have stated that none of them was paid the re-assessed compensation along with 100% solatium. However, the respondent authorities, in a discriminatory and arbitrary approach, have paid compensation to certain other similarly situated beneficiaries in the same area on the basis of the re-assessed valuation together with 100% solatium.

Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted representations dated 21.08.2019 and 30.08.2019 before the respondent authorities seeking release of compensation in terms of the re-assessment valuation report along with 100% solatium. However, despite such representations, the respondent authorities failed to release the amounts claimed by them. Hence, these writ petitions.

Mr. O. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the properties of the petitioners had admittedly been re-assessed pursuant to the judgment and order dated 09.08.2012, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 153(AP)/2012, and WP(C) No. 154(AP)/2012, and therefore, the respondent authorities cannot withhold the compensation determined pursuant to such re-assessment. More so, the respondent authorities have already received the requisite funds from the executing agency towards payment of compensation for the concerned stretches of the highway. He submits that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of 100% solatium in terms of Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and such benefit cannot be selectively extended to some beneficiaries while being denied to others whose properties have been similarly acquired for the same project. However, the respondent authorities, in a very arbitrary and discriminatory manner, have paid the re-assessed compensation together with 100% solatium to the similarly situated land-affected persons on a selective and pick and choose basis while denying the same benefit to the petitioners. He submits that once the re-assessment valuation has been made and the amount has been made available by the executing agency, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the compensation legitimately payable to them. Therefore, he submits that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to release, in favour of the petitioners, the compensation determined pursuant to the re-assessment valuation, together with 100% solatium as contemplated under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that the initial assessment of compensation was made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which 30% solatium was applicable only to the value of the land. However, pursuant to the judgment and order dated 09.08.2012, passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 153(AP)/2012 and WP(C)154 (AP)/2012, a fresh Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng, and re-assessment of the affected properties was thereafter undertaken, but the re-assessment report prepared by the fresh Board did not provide for solatium. Subsequently, the Government directed preparation of a comparative assessment of the compensation payable under the earlier assessment and under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Pursuant thereto, a comparative assessment incorporating 100% solatium was prepared and submitted to the competent authority and the Government approval for payment of compensation to the left-out beneficiaries was thereafter conveyed.

This Court, on an earlier occasion, had granted time to the learned State Counsel to obtain instructions. Pursuant thereto, Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, while placing the instruction/communication dated 20.08.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, Bomdila, submits that, as per the records available, all the petitioners in WP(C) No. 344/2019 are affected beneficiaries falling within chainage KM 167.00 to KM 174.00 of the BCT Road. She further submits that the comparative assessment included 100% solatium on the actual estimated compensation amount. However, upon verification of the records, certain variations have been noticed between the beneficiaries included in the original re-assessment and those included in the subsequent comparative assessment. Therefore, she submits that the matter may be considered in the light of the records and the Government approvals available in respect of the re-assessment and comparative assessment.

Mr. G. Riba, learned Central Government Counsel, submits that the compensation was released by the Central authorities on the basis of the estimates furnished by the competent authorities of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The additional amount towards re-assessment of the building properties was also released to the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, for disbursement to the concerned beneficiaries. However, he submits that insofar as the petitioners in WP(C) No. 344/2019 are concerned, the amounts paid to petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were already in excess of the amounts reflected in the re-assessment, whereas the amount payable to petitioner No. 5 on re-assessment was higher than the amount initially paid and the balance amount was accordingly released to him. The payments were made without solatium in terms of the assessment made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, he submits that the respondents/ Union of India have acted on the estimates and directions furnished by the competent authorities of the State Government and the question regarding entitlement to any further amount, including solatium, may be considered in accordance with the applicable law and the records of the case.

Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record.

The facts, as borne out from the pleadings and the materials placed on record, reveal that the properties of the petitioners were affected on account of construction of the Balipara-Chardwar-Tawang (BCT) Road under the Trans-Arunachal Highway Project. Initially, assessment of the compensation payable to the affected persons was made and on the basis of such assessment, compensation was disbursed to several beneficiaries. Subsequently, upon certain irregularities being brought to the notice of this Court, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2012 passed in WP(C) Nos. 153(AP)/2012 and WP(C)154(AP)/2012, inter alia, directed constitution of a fresh Compensation Board for re-assessment of the properties affected by the highway project.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a fresh Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, Bomdila, and the properties affected by the highway project were re-assessed. The petitioners in the present writ petitions are admittedly among the beneficiaries whose properties fall within the respective stretches of the BCT Road covered by such re-assessment. The second assessment/re-assessment reports prepared by the fresh Board are also not in dispute.

The stand of the State respondents is that, after the re-assessment, the matter was considered at the Government level and a comparative assessment was prepared for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the left-out beneficiaries under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State respondents, vide communication dated 03.08.2015, have themselves stated that the Government approval was conveyed for the estimate of compensation of the properties as re-assessed by the fresh Board and in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Thereafter, special approval for disbursement of the remaining compensation was conveyed vide communication dated 09.02.2018.

This Court, vide order dated 17.08.2026, directed the State respondents to place on record the instructions. Pursuant to which, today, the learned State Counsel has placed the instruction dated 20.08.2026 by the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District. Perusal of the same reveals that after the re-assessment, a comparative assessment incorporating 100% solatium on the actual estimated compensation amount was prepared and submitted to the Commissioner, Land Management, on 31.07.2015 and the same was approved by the Government. Thus, the records placed before this Court indicates that the issue of payment of compensation on the basis of the second assessment, along with the solatium, had already been considered and approved at the appropriate level.

It is true that the initial assessment was made at a time when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was stated to be applicable and under the then prevailing position, 30% solatium was applicable to the land value. However, the subject matter in the present writ petitions does not relate merely to the correctness of the initial assessment. The issue is as to the entitlement of the petitioners to the compensation determined pursuant to the subsequent re-assessment and the benefit of 100% solatium, particularly when the State authorities themselves proceeded to undertake a comparative assessment under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the same was approved by the Government.

From the contention of the respondents/Union of India, it appears that the compensation amounts, including the additional amount towards re-assessment, were released to the Deputy Commissioner, West Kameng District, for disbursement to the concerned beneficiaries. The respondents have also placed on record the amounts reflected in the initial assessment and the second assessment. Therefore, the question that survives for consideration is essentially with regard to disbursement of the compensation payable to the petitioners on the basis of the second assessment, along with 100% solatium.

The contention of the petitioners that similarly situated beneficiaries have been extended the benefit of compensation on the basis of the re-assessed valuation along with 100% solatium also finds support from the materials placed on record. Once the respondent authorities have themselves undertaken a second assessment pursuant to the earlier judgment of this Court and the Government has thereafter approved the comparative assessment incorporating 100% solatium, there can be no justification for denying the same benefit to the petitioners whose properties were subjected to the very same process of re-assessment for the very same highway project.

Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of compensation from the second assessment merely on the ground that they had earlier received compensation on the basis of the first assessment. The amount already received by any of the petitioners would, naturally, be liable to be duly adjusted while determining the balance amount payable on the basis of the second assessment. However, such earlier payment cannot operate as a bar to payment of the differential amount found payable pursuant to the second assessment, together with the applicable 100% solatium.

Insofar as the petitioner No. 5 in WP(C) No. 344/2019 is concerned, the records indicate that the amount determined on the second assessment was higher than the amount initially paid to him and the difference was accordingly released. However, the benefit of 100% solatium has not been extended to him. Similarly, in respect of the other petitioners, the materials indicate that the compensation payable pursuant to the second assessment has not been uniformly released. Such differential treatment, particularly when the comparative assessment with 100% solatium had been approved by the Government, cannot be sustained.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation on the basis of the second assessment/re-assessment made by the fresh Compensation Board, along with 100% solatium. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to release the compensation payable to the respective petitioners on the basis of the second assessment/re-assessment of their properties, together with 100% solatium, after adjusting the amounts already paid to the respective petitioners, if any. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

Writ petitions stand allowed and disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost(s).