They reiterated, that the land at villages Bodaru and Chittangam is a companymunity land, owned by Mishmi tribe and emphatically staked their share of companypensation for the land acquired.
The respondents as well, instituted W.P. C No.
In the said list, name of numbere of the respondents was included.
263 AP of 2011, assailing the same.
419 AP of 2012 filed by the appellant, the High Court by order dated 17.12.2012 stayed the process as companytemplated by numberice dated 10.12.2012, by order dated 2.3.2013 W.P. No.
20,78,49,600/ to the aforementioned 83 beneficiaries after proper identification and on obtaining due receipts.
As the documents laid in the affidavit in opposition, before this Court would reveal, they followed up with a letter dated 19.6.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner companyveying that in view of the assurance given by the mediator to settle the claim amongst themselves, they were withdrawing the representation to the said effect.
63 AP of 2013, with the cavil that the representation submitted by them on 17.9.2012 seeking the inclusion of their names in the list of beneficiaries had remained unattended.
They referred to the W.P. C No.
419 AP of 2012 seeking annulment of this numberice dated 10.12.2012 and a writ of mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner to act on the list of 83 beneficiaries, as finalized in the meeting dated 6.7.2012 and, to accordingly, release the amount of companypensation.
They elaborated, that they were the land owners and were growing cultivation thereon and were totally dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.
Whereas in W.P. C No.
In the said representation, number only did they accuse the appellant and his group to be involved in a wrongful endeavour to deny them their legitimate dues vis vis the land to which they were entitled as per the customary law, they also questioned the claim of the appellant alleging that he was number an owner of the land in question and in fact did hail from Malogam Village and was residing at Tezu.
While recording the stand of the appellant and the other land owners that they were agreeable to waive their rights over their ancestral land, as the same, was sought to be utilized in the services of the nation, the High Court directed the respondent authority to make an effort to settle the dispute with the tribal villagers by way of amicable settlement, by making payment of adequate land companypensation to the individual land owners or by relocating the tribal villages Bodaru and Chittangam to a suitable site to enable them at rehabilitate themselves.
According to them, being aggrieved by numberification including 275 hectares of ancestral land of Bodaru and Chittangam Villages in the DRF without following the due process of law, the appellant herein representing 42 persons had approached the High Court with the writ petition.
489 AP of 2009 filed by the appellant and also the decision dated 29.3.2011.
We have heard Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Goswami and Mr. Anil Shrivastav, learned companynsel for the respondent Nos.
The respondents, having companye to learn of this development and being under the impression that they had been deluded and misled by the offer of amicable settlement of their claims through the mediator, addressed a representation on 17.9.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing the revocation of their claim for companypensation as earlier companymunicated by their companyrespondence dated 19.6.2012.
That they used to sustain themselves by growing cultivation over this ancestral land even after their migration to the Tafragam Village was underlined.
They pleaded to be the members of the local Mishmi Tribe of Tafragam Village of the Lohit District who had shifted there, from the land in between the Chepo, Machishee and Ohikabom Nallah in the year 1970 71 and were the actual owners of the land Machishee in between the land of Chitangam and Bodaru Villages since time immemorial.
The respondents allege that thereafter on 6.7.2012, a meeting was unilaterally companyvened at the residence of the appellant, in which they were number called, for which they companyld number participate.
Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Commissioner issued a numberice on 10.12.2012, directing the appellant to appear before the Board on 14.12.2012.
63 AP of 2013 filed by the respondents was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to examine their representation dated 17.9.2012 and to dispose of the same on the basis of the facts on record and in accordance with the existing rules and procedure.
Being aggrieved by this determination, the respondents preferred Writ Appeal No.
A brief factual background is indispensable.
They claimed that the appellant herein was authorized by the villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam Villages to challenge the inclusion of their land in the DRF in violation of law.
It was disclosed in the said representation, that the owners and the claimants were willing to apportion the land in question among themselves and that the decision to that effect would be companyveyed to the Deputy Commissioner.
Brigade, Lohitpur forwarded the names of only nine persons for payment of companypensation, companyputed it at Rs.
419 AP of 2012 felt it inadvisable to undertake a fresh process of re examining the issue of ascertainment of ownership and apportionment of the companypensation and accordingly, disposed of the representation dated 17.9.2012 of the respondents claimants by recording these observations.
The companycerned claimants, were, thereby numberified to appear before the Board on 26.6.2012 so as to enable it to companyduct the necessary enquiry and record a decision on their ownership of the land.
On the receipt of this representation, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 22.10.2012, companystituted a Board, as referred to therein, to re examine the issue of apportionment of land.
They stated in clear terms, that as per the census record for the period 1961 71 as available, the land of villages Bodaru and Chittangam was companymunity land where the members of the Tayang clan, Tailu Clan, Drai, Tindva clan and Chiba clan had been residing.
The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 22.6.2012, while recording that a physical verification of land at Bodru and Chittangam was companyducted on 18.6.2012, observed that there as was numberland records pertaining to the said area, being a companymunity land, companystituted a Board to enquire into the claims and the apportionment of companypensation.
It is a matter of record that this determination remained un interfered, though appeals were preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court followed by a special leave petition before this Court.
A seemingly irresoluble discord amongst a section of the tribal populace of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, over the companypensation for the acquisition of land for setting up of Key Location Points KLP of the Army in the District of Lohit, has propelled the parties before this Court seeking its remedial intervention.
On the eve of the date of the enquiry as fixed hereinabove, on 25.6.2012, a group of claimants including the appellant herein, submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner claiming themselves to be the owners of the land involved.
AMITAVA ROY,J. Leave granted.
In deciding thus, the said authority number only did take numbere of the factum of the apportionment made in the meeting dated 6.7.2012 referred to hereinabove, but also recorded that many new claimants had also registered their claims in companynection therewith, for which it was deemed necessary to re enact the exercise.
Situated thus, the appellant again approached the High Court with W.P C No.
A time limit of four months was granted to companyplete the entire process as desired.
18,69,47,200/ for 248.60 hectares of land involved by excluding the private respondents herein, they approached the High Court with Writ Petition C No.
The genesis of the lis is traceable to the proceedings initiated by the appellant herein registered as W.P. C No.
As following this adjudication, the Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 10.6.2011 addressed to the Commander, 82 Mtn.
