Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
Komane Mele vs The Land Acquisition Collector/ Deputy ... on 27 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC040019392025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/557/2025
Komane Mele
Son of Late Dibi Mele, permanent resident of Etalin Village, PO Etalin, PS Anini,
Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The Land Acquisition Collector/ Deputy Commissioner and 2 Ors
Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Secretary Land
Management
Age: 0
Occupation :
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
3:The Head of Project
Age: 0
Occupation :
M/s Etalin Hydro Electric Power Project
3097 MW
(SJVN LTd)
Etalin 10 Kms (Ajuli) under Etalin Circle
PO Etalin
PS Anini
Dibang Valley District
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Mindo Taso,Muchi Mele,Idak Bam,Ligam Nochi
Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),
BEFORE
Page No.# 2/4
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 27.11.2025 Heard Ms M. Mele, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents No.1 and 2.
The case of the petitioner is that his two parcels of land has been acquired for the proposed Etalin Hydro Electric Project. His two parcels of land are situated at Dibang Valley District. The respondent authorities assessed the compensation amount and thereafter, passed an award for Rs. 1,59,14,890/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety) only under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("RFCT & LARR Act", for short). The petitioner has submitted that his two parcels of land are at a radial distance beyond 20 km from the proposed project and as such, the multiplication factor ought to have been taken as 1.4 in terms of the Government Notifications dated 09.01.2015 and 05.07.2016. It is the further contention of the petitioner that had the multiplication factor been taken as 1.4, the petitioner would have been entitled to receive a compensation amount of Rs. 2,03,28,206/- (Rupees Two Crore Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Six), meaning thereby, the petitioner is entitled to receive a further amount of Rs.44,13,316/-(Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixteen) only. Hence, the petitioner has assailed the action of the State respondents in taking the multiplication factor as 1.0 in Page No.# 3/4 assessing the compensation amount and passing the award without taking multiplication factor as 1.4.
Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, A.P. has submitted, on the basis of the instructions received, that in so far as, acquisition of land for the project in question, the State Government has already decided that the multiplication factor would be 1.0 as per it Manual of 2022.
The matter regarding fixation of the multiplication factor as 1.0 for all the parcels of land required for the project would require consideration.
Issue notice, returnable by 4(four) weeks.
As Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General has entered appearance and accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, issuance of formal notice upon the said respondents is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioners shall furnish requisite numbers of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexure to Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General within 2(two) working days from today.
The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent No.3 by speed post with A/D within 2(two) working days from today.
List the matter again after 4(four) weeks.
Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant