Gauhati High Court
Shri Nuney Tayang(Attorney Holder) vs The Union Of India & Ors on 29 March, 2011
Author: A. C. Upadhyay
Bench: A. C. Upadhyay
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MAGHALAYA,
MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ITANAGAR BENCH
W.P.(C) NO. 489 (AP) OF 2009
Shri Nuney Tayang(Attorney Holder),
S/O Late P. Tayang, Shivajinagar Road,
Tezu, Lohit District(AP), representing
42 land owners of Baodaru and
Chittangam village.
.............. Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Union of India through the
Cabinet Secretary to the
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Environment & Forests,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
4. The Inspector General of Forests,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
5. The Assistant Inspector General of Forests,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
6. The Defence Estates Officer,
Jorhat, Assam.
7. The Commander,
82 Mountain Brigade,
C/O 99 APO, Tezu, Lohitpur,
District Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh.
8. The Chief Secretary to the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh,
Itanagar.
2
9. The Secretary, Department of
Forests, Government of Arunachal Pradesh,
Itanagar.
10. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests(PCCF), Government of Arunachal
Pradesh, Itanagar.
11. The Divisional Forests Officer,
Lohit Forests Division, Tezu, District Lohit,
Arunachal Pradesh.
12. The Deputy Commissioner, Tezu,
District Lohit cum Forest Settlement Officer,
Appointed U/S 5(1)(c) of the
Assam Forests Regulation, 1891.
13. Shri Bomju Tai, Gaon Burah of
Loilang Village, PO Loilang, PS Tezu,
District Lohit.
14. Shri Khogen Boo, Head Gaon Burah of
Loilang Village, PO Loilang,
PS Tezu, District Lohit.
15. Shri Bajolum Tailu,
Gaon Burah of Loilang Village,
PO Loilang, PS Tezu,
District Lohit.
16. Shri Dengui Tayang,
Gaon Burah of Tafrogam village,
PO Tafrogam, PS Tezu,
District Lohit.
.............. Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY For the petitioner : Mr. T. Pertin, Advocate MR. S. Tapin, Advocate Mr. L. Tenzing, Advocate Mr. X. Gyati, Advocate Mr. Y. Kaku, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. G. Deka, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. A. Mannan, CGC Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate 3 Date of hearing : 14.03.2011, 18.03.2011.
Date of delivery of judgment : 29.03.2011 & order JUDGEMENT & ORDER The writ petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the Gazette Notification No.119/71 dated 16.02.1973, proposing to constitute Denning Reserve Forest, under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, and subsequent Gazette Notification No.118/68 dated 23.09.1977, issued under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, declaring approximately 25,641 hectares of land described in the schedule as „Denning Reserve Forest‟, by including thereto 275 hectares of ancestral land belong to the petitioner, within the reserve forest. The petitioner alleged that the notification constituting the „Denning Reserve Forest‟ was issued by the State Government without the knowledge of the actual land owners, in violation of the provisions of the
(i) Assam Forest Regulation, 1891; (ii) the Balipara, Tirap, Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947; (iii) the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Records and Settlement) Act, 2000 and the Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
2. The petitioner has also challenged the legality and validity of the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 22.03.2005, by which the villagers of the Denning forest area were made to agree and part away with their ancestral land in 4 question, and the consequent order issued vide No.LRE-5723/06 dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner.
3. The facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows:
The tribal population of Arunachal Pradesh have been engaging in Jhum cultivation from time immemorial on their community land. The private (individual) and community (common) ownership of land is well accepted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, among the villagers. Accordingly, different clans and tribes in the State have individual, as well as common right of ownership and title over their land.
4. It has been stated in the writ petition that the villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam villages are local Mishmi tribe of Lohit District, and they are living in the aforesaid area and sustaining their livelihood by doing cultivation (including Jhum), over their ancestral land. The Bodaru and Chittangam villages are now spread over more than 300 hectares of land from very long time.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision cited in 2005 3 GLT 306 : Bedang Apum & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. to explain the Jhum land and the rights of the tribal people over such community land, which may be gainfully quoted as follows:
5
"In the areas where the shifting method of Jhum cultivation is followed, all land as a principle belongs to the clan or village. Such land begin with clearing operation of trees along with under grown trees which are cut down and left it on the field to dry. Thereafter fire is set to those tress and cleared and the ashes are left on the ground. Thereafter sowing starts and the cultivation depends upon what is known as Patat. The entire agricultural land of a village is divided into a numbers of blocks which are earmarked for village after a definite number of years of fallow and such blocks are known as Patats. The Patats are demarcated by stone pillars known as LISIK, Taba and Sodak for proper identification. If for a particular period one Patat is used it is kept fellow after some period of time and cultivation is made on the other area in a rotating manner. The individual right of cultivation and possession continues through the cycle of agricultural operation, and remains suspended during fallow periods. Thus there is no specific and absolute individual claim of right of a cultivator over such portion of land which can be claimed for ever by him, on the ground of cultivation for a period.
This system of cultivation is recognized as Jhum cultivation. "Jhum land" has been defined in the Balipara, Tirap, Sadiya, Frontier Tract Jhum land Regulation, 1947 (for short 1947 Regulation) is as follows :
" (b ) "JHUM LANDS" means and includes all lands which any member or members of a village or community have customary rights to cultivate by means of shifting cultivation or to utilize by clearing jungle or grazing livestock provided that such village or community is in a permanent location but does not include
(i) any land which has been or is under process of being terraced for the purpose of permanent or semi-permanent cultivation whether by means of irrigation or nor,
(ii) Any land attached or appurtenant to a dwelling house and used for the purpose of permanent cultivation, or
(iii) Any land which in the opinion of the Deputy commissioner is subjected to permanent cultivation.
Explanation "
(1) Any land which is otherwise Jhum land according to the above definition shall be deemed to be so notwithstanding the fact that a part or the whole thereof may have been planted with fruit trees, bamboos, or ftung or reserved for growing firewood.
(2) Any village or community shall be held to be in permanent location of it always remains within a specific area, although part or the whole of such village or community may migrate from time to time to different localities within that area".
Section 4 of the 1947 Regulation provides accrual procedure rights over Jhum and section 5 of the Act provides for transfer of Jhum land. Under Section 4 (1) a customary right to Jhum land is established in favour of a community when 6 such community has enjoyed the right to cultivate to such land for not less than 5 years prior to the making of the regulation.
Under Section 4 (2) of the Act, a customary right to Jhum land in favour of an individual cultivator arises-
" (a) if he inherited the land in accordance with a local custom :
(b) if he purchased the land prior to the making of this Regulation and such purchase was not contrary to local custom, or
(c) if he has purchased the land at any date subsequent to making of this Regulation, provided such purchase was not contrary to any local custom or any provisions of this Regulation, or if, being a resident of permanent village, he has brought the land under cultivation, and the land has not been cultivated at any time within 30 years preceeding his bringing the same into cultivation. "
Section 5 of the Regulation provides that Jhum land to which a community has a customary right may not be transferred to another community or to any individual except with the permission of the Land Conservator. The aforesaid provisions were made with a view to safe guard and regulate the rights of the tribes indigenous to the area over the Jhum land. Such community land has also been statutorily recognized by the State which can be seen from the S. 9 of the Arunachal pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act 2000 dealing with accrual of rights over land. S. 9 of the Act of 2000 is quoted herein below :
"9. (1 ). All lands, public roads, lands and paths and bridges, ditches, dikes, and fences on or beside the same, the beds of rivers, streams, nallahs, lakes and tanks, and all canals and water courses and all standing and flowing water, and rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, which are not the property of any person or community are hereby declared to be the property of the Government . (2 ). Unless it is otherwise expressly provided in the terms of a grant made by the Government, the right to mines, quarries, mineral products including mineral oil, natural gas and petroleum shall vest in the Government, and it shall have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment of such rights".
6. Thus the community land is not declared as Govt. land in view of the special status attached in such land since time immemorial. Under Section 20 of the said Act the definition of "Jhum land" is declared to be same as defined in the 1947 Regulation, above.
7
7. As per Annexure-2, annexed with the writ petition, the Panchayat members and Gaon Buras of different villages of Lohit District have unanimously certified that the present petitioners are the owners of the lands situated at Bodaru and Chittangam villages.
8. In the year 1972, the then Chief Conservator of Forests & Ex-Officio Secretary (Forests), Arunachal Pradesh Administration, Shillong, issued a gazette Notification vide No.FOR.119/71 dated 16.02.1973, under Section 5 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, proposing to constitute a reserve forests, called "Denning Reserve Forests", consisting of 25,641 hectare (approx) of land in Lohit District of Arunachal Pradesh, and subsequently, the respondent authorities issued notification and declared the "Denning Reserve Forests", under Section 17 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891.
9. The petitioner specifically stated that the respondent authorities had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, while constituting the "Denning Reserve Forests". In support of the allegation aforesaid, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the actual land owners, who were forest villagers, were not at all informed or issued with any show cause notice before constitution of the Reserve Forest, and the required Notification in terms of Section 5 and 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, was issued clandestinely, in an arbitrary exercise of power by the authority concerned.
8
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the requirement of law under Sections 6,8,10,11 and 15 of the aforesaid Regulation was not at all complied with and no proceeding as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions of law, was ever drawn up by the respondent State. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the provision of the Assam Forest Regulation (hereinafter the Act), has been violated by the State authority in constituting the Denning Reserve Forest, which has rendered the exercise of declaration of Denning Reserve Forest non est in the eye of law.
11. According to the writ petitioner, the proclamation made by Forests Settlement Officer under Section 6 of the Act; inquiry carried out by the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 8 of the Act; treatment of claims relating to practice of Jhum cultivation by the resident of the locality under Section 10 of the Act, and power to acquire land over which right is claimed, without admitting the quantum of compensation under Section 11 of the Act, as well as the entire exercise carried out, without affording the opportunity to prefer appeal from orders under Section 15 of the Act was illegal and thus the so called Notification, issued under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, could not have been issued and the same is non-est in the eye of law.
12. The petitioner claims for quashing the aforesaid orders and notifications for being illegal and void, and therefore, rendered the constitution of "Denning Reserve Forests‟, as illegal and 9 arbitrary in the eye of law, for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 5,6,8,10, 11 and 15 and other provisions of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, by the respondent authorities.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factum of declaration of "Denning Reserve Forests", under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and inclusion of 275 hectares of the land belonging to the petitioners and other land owners was never known by the actual land owners i.e. tribal villagers. The poor tribal villagers had no inkling, whatsoever, from any source that their lands were included in the "Denning Reserve Forests" and, therefore, they also could not raise their objections against constitution/declaration of "Denning Reserve Forests", because the State respondents at no point of time had informed the petitioner and the other land owners about the publication of aforementioned notification under Section 5 and 17 of the Regulation, 1891. As a result of which, the petitioner and other land owners of Bodaru and Chittangam villages remained ignorant of the above facts and peacefully continued to occupy and possession by growing cultivation over their ancestral land, without any interference from the State Government till date.
14. At this stage it would be pertinent to extract, herein below the relevant provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, which provides provisions relating to declaration of Reserve Forest, which reads as under:-
10
"5. Notification by State Government of proposal to constitute a reserved forest. (1) Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall publish a notification in the official Gazette- (a) Specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limit of such land; (b) Describe that it is proposed to constitute such land a reserved forest; and (c) Appointing an officer (hereinafter called the Forest Settlement Officer), to enquire into and determine existence, nature and extent of any right claimed by, or alleged to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land comprised within such limit, and any claims relating to the practice within 4 such limits, of Jhum cultivation, and to deal with the same as provided in this chapter.
(2) The Forest Settlement Officer shall ordinarily be a person other than a Forest Officer, but a Forest Officer may be appointed by the State Government to assist the Forest Settlement officer in the enquiry prescribed in this Chapter.
6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement Officer. When a notification has been published under S. 5, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish in the language of the country, at the headquarters of each district and sub-division, in which any portion of the land comprised in such notification is situated, and in every town and village in the neighborhood of such land, a proclamation-
(a) Specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the proposed forest;
(b) Setting forth the substance of provisions of the next following section,
(c) Explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided, will ensue on the reservation of such forest; and
(d) Fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of the publication of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any right or making any claim referred to or mentioned in S 5 either to present top such officer within such period a written notice specifying or to appear before him within such period and state the nature of such right or claim.
8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer. (1) The Forest Settlement Officer shall take down in writing all statements made under S.6 and shall inquire into all claim made under the section and existence of any right or practice mentioned in S.5 in respect of which no claim is made.
(2) The Forest Settlement Officer shall at the time consider and record any objection which the Forest Officer, if any, appointed under S. 5 to assist him, may make to any such claim or with respect to existence of any such right or practice.
10.Treatment of claims relating to practice of Jhum cultivation. (1) In the case of a claim relating to the practice of Jhum- cultivation, the Forest Settlement Officer shall record a statement setting forth the particulars of the claim and of any local rule or order under which the practice is allowed or regulated, and submit the statement to the State Government together with his opinion as to whether the practice should be permitted or prohibited wholly or in part.
(2) On receipt of the statement and opinion, the State Government may make an order permitting or prohibiting the practice wholly or in part.
(3) If such practice is permitted wholly or in part, the Forest Settlement Officer may arrange for its exercise- 11
(a) By altering the limits of the land under settlement so as to exclude land of sufficient extent, of a suitable kind, and in a locality reasonably convenient for the purposes of the claimants, or
(b) By causing certain portion of the land under settlement to be separately demarcated and giving permission to the claimant to practice Jhum cultivation therein under such conditions as he may prescribe. All arrangements made under this sub-section shall be subject to the previous sanction of the State Government.
(4) The practice of Jhum cultivation shall in all cases to be a privilege subject to control, restriction and abolition by the State Government and not to be a right.
11.Power to acquire land over which right is claimed. (1) In the case of claim to a right in or over any land other than the following rights, namely:
(a) a right of way,
(b) a right to water-course or to use of water,
(c) a right of pasture or to forest-produce The Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order specifying the particulars of such claim and admitting or rejecting the same wholly or in part.
(2) If such claim is admitted wholly or in part, the Forest Settlement Officer may-
(a) come to an agreement with the claimant for the surrender of the right, or
(b) exclude the land from the limits of the proposed forest, or
(c) proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the land Acquisition Act, 1870.
(3) For the purpose of so acquiring such land-
(i) the Forest Settlement Officer shall be deemed to be a Collector proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1872;
(ii) the claimant shall be deemed to be a person interested and appearing before him in pursuance of a notice given under S. 9 of that Act;
(iii) the provisions of the preceding sections of that Act shall be deemed to have been complied with; and
(iv) the Collector, with the consent of the claimant, may award compensation in land, or in money, or partly in land and partly in money.
15. Appeal from order passed under foregoing sections. Any person who has made a claim under this Chapter (or any Forest Officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf) may within three months from the date of any order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement Officer under S. 11, 12, 13 or 14 present an appeal from such order to such officer of the Revenue Department, of rank not lower than that of a Deputy Commissioner as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint by name, or as holding an office, to hear appeals from such orders.
17. Notification declaring forest reserve (1) When the following events have occurred, namely:
(a) the period fixed under S. 6 for preferring claim has elapsed, and all claims, if any, made within such period has been disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer; and 12
(b) if such claims have been made, the period fixed by S. 15 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals, if any, presented within such period have been disposed of by the appellate officer; and
(c) all lands, if any, to be included in the proposed reserved forest which the Forest Settlement Officer has under S. 11 elected to acquire under the land Acquisition Act , 1870 have become vested in the Government under Land Acquisition Act, 1870 (X of 1870).
The State Government may publish a notification in official Gazette, specifying the limits of the forest which it is intended to reserve, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by such notification.
10(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be reserved forest."
15. The State respondent filed their counter affidavit contending therein that the Denning Reserve Forests was duly constituted by observing the process of law as provided under the Assam Forest Regulation and issued Notification dated 23.09.1977. The claim raised by the petitioner according to the respondent after more than 32 years of constitution of the Reserve Forest is baseless. It has been further contended in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that after issuing of preliminary notification, proclamation was issued under Section 6 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891 and after due process, final notification was published in the official gazette. The State authorities, however, failed to annex any documents to substantiate the claim of having issued the proclamation under Section 6 or that any proceeding was ever taken up or initiated in accordance with law. Further, the State respondents have not come forward to explain the allegations of violation of provisions of sections 8,10,11 and 15 of the Regulation. 13
16. Now, question, which arises for consideration, is whether the State Government complied with, the mandatory requirement of the provision of the Assam Forest Regulation before constitution of the "Denning Reserve Forest" in respect of the community land belonging to the Tribal villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam. It would be pertinent to depict herein the reply of the State respondent in this regard.
17. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveal requirement of strict compliance of the provisions of the Regulation. The State Government except making bare statement in the affidavit regarding publication of notification in accordance with law, did not put forward to place any document to prima facie show that such compliance was effected in accordance with law and the actual land owners had due notice of the proposed constitution of the Reserve Forest. Inference can be drawn that the allegations made by the petitioner of not following the due process of law in declaring the Reserve Forest is apparently not without basis.
18. The State respondents in their affidavit contended that the "Denning Reserve Forest" area has been constituted with due process of law vide notification dated 23.09.1977 and the claim of the petitioner after 32 years of the constitution of the "Denning Reserve Forest" for having included 275 hectares of land belonging to the forest villagers are baseless. The private respondent Nos.13, 14, 15 & 16 i.e. the Gaon Burahs, who had signed the MOU dated 22.03.2005 also filed their affidavit in this proceeding to state that 14 they were simply called in the meeting and asked to sign the papers by the Deputy Commissioner, without informing the content of the papers. Apparently the affidavit indicates that the innocent, illiterate villagers were taken for a ride by obtaining their consent in an oblique way to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
19. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohit District, affirmed existence of the Bodaru and Chittangam villages during the census operation of 1961 and 1971 census. The respondent-State Government denied the claim of constitution of reserve forest, without following the procedure provided in the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Though the State respondent annexed copies of the notification under Section 5 read with Section 3 of the Regulation, and also the notification issued under Section 17 of the Regulation to show constitution of Reserve Forest in accordance with law, but the moot question for consideration is whether such bare notification, without following other requirements of law, would include the areas under occupation of the Forest villagers. Apparently, there is no document or report from the side of the State Government to show that the villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam were notified in accordance with law. Question, which now arises for consideration is whether constitution of the Reserve Forest would include the two villages, namely, Bodaru and Chittangam, if due notice was not served on the residents in compliance of the provisions of law.
15
20. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the State respondent, it appears that there is no reference of the enquiry made by the Forest Settlement Officer, appointed in terms of the impugned notifications. Apparently, either the Forest Settlement Officer could not locate the forest villages or the villagers could not find the Forest Settlement Officer, else there would have been some reference of the existence of such a villages, when the exercise was carried out . There is also no reference of any claim made by any of the residents of the Forest village to trigger land acquisition process as per provision of Section 11 of the Regulation.
21. The petitioner further stated that after declaring the "Denning Reserve Forests", the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit submitted a proposal to the Secretary, Department of Forests, Itanagar, vide letter dated 23.09.1982, for de-reservation forests land at Lohitpur for establishment of KLP Army Brigade. On 17.09.2002, the Assistant Inspector General of Forests, Ministry of Environment & Forests(F.C. Division), Government of Arunachal Pradesh approved the diversion/de-reservation of 720 hectares of the Denning Reserve Forests, for establishment of KLP Brigade Head Quarters at Lohitpur, District Lohit. The areas, which were initially proposed for reserved forests, for de-reservation by the State respondents, are as follows:
1. Udio-Majum Reserve Forests-19.50 hac.
2. Tezu Station Reserve Forest-7.75 hec.
3. Denning Reserve Forests-275.00 hec.16
4. Denning Reserve Forests.7.50 hec.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is concerned with the de-
reservation of 275 hectares of the Denning Reserve Forests land mentioned at Sl. No.3 above, which belonged to the villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam.
23. The petitioner pointed out that in the year 2002, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu started surveying the land of the petitioners. Upon enquiry, the petitioner and the other land owners of Bodaru and Chittangam villages were informed that the land was being surveyed for allotment to the Army authorities.
24. When the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh, proposed to allot the land belonging to the petitioner and other villagers to the Army authorities, the villagers of Bodaru, Chittangam, Dibanggam, Dinningam, Chepailang, Loilang, Chetangam and Lohitpur villages, to their utter surprise came to know that their lands have already been included into a Reserve Forests. All of them vehemently opposed the allotment of their land to the Army authorities.
25. Being aggrieved by such action of the State Government, the petitioners also filed representation dated 25.06.2002, before the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, objecting declaration of their land as Reserve Forests and allotment of the 17 same to the army authorities. The aforementioned villagers also sought for permission to hold a peaceful procession against the State Government, for alienating them from their ancestral land without any authority of law. The petitioners stated that on 26.08.2002, the land owners of Bodaru, Chitangam, Dibangam and Denningam conducted mass public procession at Tezu, Lohit District, after due permission from the respondent authority. The Gaon Burahs and Panchayat/Village Council members have also submitted representation-dated 25.10.2002, to the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu to refrain his staff from surveying the land of the aforesaid villagers, for the purpose of allotment to the Army authority.
26. The petitioner stated that the attempts to deprive the petitioner and other land owners of Bodaru and Chittangam villages from their ancestral land continued and finally in the year 2005, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in connivance with some Gaon Burahs of the Loilang and Tafrogam villages, who had no authority from the local Mishmi villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam villages, executed the impugned Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.03.2005(Tripartite Agreement), with the army authorities and Government of India. Consequently, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.03.2005, the Gaon Burahs of Loilang and Tafragam village, representing the Bodaru and Chittangam villagers, agreed to part away with 275 hectares of land of the petitioner and other landowners, for allotment to the Army 18 authorities. The petitioners alleged that the entire process of declaring and notifying Denning Reserve Forest was kept a closely guarded secret, and no notices were issued to the petitioner and other landowners of Bodaru and Chittangam villages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.03.2005, being devoid of any legal sanctity, is liable to be declared as null and void.
27. The petitioner submitted representation dated 16.10.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District, being aggrieved by the inclusion of 275 hectares of ancestral land of Bodaru and Chittangam area into the Denning Reserve Forests, in a surreptitious manner, without following due process of law and subsequent de-reservation and allotment of the said land to the Army authorities. Since the representation dated 16.10.2008, was not considered by the State authority, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No.495(AP) of 2008 before this Court. On 12.01.2009, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.10.2008.
28. The Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, considered the aforesaid representation dated 16.1.2009 and rejected it, vide order dated 27.01.2009, on the following grounds:-
1. Since Denning reserve Forest had been notified vide Secretary, Forests, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar Notification No.FOR/118/68 dated 22/9/77, 248.60 Ha. of land acquired by Army at Bodaru and Chittangam 19 areas(Denning/Lohitpur) is considered to be falling within Denning RF area.
2. 248.60 Ha. of land acquired by Army at above mentioned area shall stand as it is, non-restorable either to Forest Department or local Mishmi people as Army had already paid Rs.2,48,60,000/-(Rupees two crores forty eight lakhs sixty thousand) only to the state Govt. for the cost of land transfer value and Rs.1,84,64,000/-(Rupees one crore eighty four lakhs sixty four thousand) only to the Forest Department for the cost of NPV/CA considering it a part of Denning Reserve Forest area.
3. Regarding benefits of local people under the Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,2006, this Act was not in force while signing/executing the Tripartite Agreement/MoU on 22/3/05.
29. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner preferred WP(C) No.62(AP) of 2009, challenging the rejection of the representation dated 16.10.2008, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, and in the aforesaid writ petition, the State respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 03.11.2009. However, the petitioner with a liberty to file afresh withdrew the said writ petition.
30. In the aforementioned order dated 27.01.2009, the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District, admitted that the local Mishmi people are the original land owners of Bodaru and Chittangam area and they had settlement in Bodaru and Chittangam, area even prior to the year 1950. In the aforesaid order the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu also admitted that due to objection from the original land owners (petitioner and the other 20 villagers) of Bodaru and Chittangam areas, their land could not be handed over to Army authorities.
31. Mr. A Mannan, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 7 submitted that the Union of India has not filed any affidavit in this writ petition but submitted that the Indian Army has already paid an amount of Rs.2,48,60,000/- being the cost/value of the land to the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Rs.1,84,64,000/-, being the cost of NPV/CA(Compensatory Afforestation) to the Forests Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.
32. The petitioner by filing affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 12, explained the delay in approaching the Court as follows:-
"4.1 There is no delay in approaching this Hon‟ble Court because the entire action of the respondent authorities in converting the land of the petitioner as a „Reserve Forest‟ and subsequent e-reservation was done surreptitiously without the knowledge of the petitioner and other villagers of Bodaru and Chitangam area. The petitioner has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay, if any. As stated in paragraph-21 of the writ petition, it was for the first time in the year 2002 when the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu was surveying the land of the petitioner for allotment to the Army authorities that the petitioner and other land owners came to know that their ancestral land has been included into a Reserve Forest. All the aforementioned villagers of Bodaru, Chittangam, Dibanggam, Dinningam, Chepailang, Loilang, Chetangam and Lohitpur villages vehemently opposed allotment of their land to the Army authority by the State Government and they jointly filed a representation dated 25.06.2002 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu objecting declaration of their land as Reserve Forest and allotment of the same to the Army authorities. The effected people has been agitating and raising the issue since then, The aforementioned villagers also held peaceful procession and agitated the matters by submitting representations, which culminated in the representation dated 16/10/2008 seeking land compensation (annexure-11) and also filed a writ petition before this Hon‟ble Court (WPC- 495(AP)/2008) which was disposed of on 12/1/2009 wherein 21 the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu was given liberty to dispose of the representation dated 16/10/2008. The ground of delay was not at all raised in WPC-495(AP)/2008. It is stated that the representation dated 16/10/2008 was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner only on 27/1/2009 (Annexure-13) and being aggrieved another writ petition being WPC No.62(AP)/2009 was filed. However, the aforesaid WPC No.62(AP)/2009 were withdrawn on 03/11/2009 with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present writ petition was filed on 21/12/2009 in which amongst other grounds, the rejection order of the Deputy Commissioner only on 27/1/2009 (Annexure-13) is impugned. Therefore, there is no delay in moving the present petition and hence the ground of delay is not tenable.
5. That in regards to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in opposition, the petitioner begs to state that the entire process was carried out in surreptitious manner without letting the land owners know about the process. It is reiterated that the lands included in the "Denning Reserve Forest" are being cultivated by the land owners since time immemorial to till date by the respective land owners through wet rice cultivation, horticulture garden and bamboo plantations. If the land was declared as reserve forest through due process of law, the land owners would have been stopped from cultivation and necessary legal process for unauthorized occupation ought to have been initiated but till date nothing of that sort has come up which shows that the entire process was done in a surreptitious manner. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner and other land owners have come and occupied the land in questions recently after declaration of "Denning Reserve Forest".
33. The petitioner by showing the photographs of the villages has submitted that it is still under the occupation of the petitioner and other landowners and are being used for cultivation by Jhumming. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all the "Denning Reserve Forest" was duly constituted, then necessary legal process to evict the villagers and land owners could have been taken long before for unauthorized occupation, but no action was even taken till date, which according to the petitioner, is an indirect admission of the fact that the land has been included in the "Denning Reserve Forests", surreptitiously by simply preparing paper documents and notifying it. The petitioner emphasized on the 22 fact that the lands are still under the lawful occupation of the petitioner and other landowners.
34. Further, the petitioners have filed additional-affidavit to bring on record, the Xerox copy of brief history dated 13.3.2003 and the Xeroxed copy of the para wise replies addressed to the Sr. Govt. Advocate dated 2.1.2009, both under the signature of the Dy. Commissioner, Lohit District, Tezu have been brought on records. The aforesaid records reveal as follows:
"1.1. The proposal for handing over of 720 Ha. of Key Location Point(KLP) land for locating Army Brigade HQ in Denning, Lohitpur could not materialize due to strong objections from the original land owners of said area. The land originally belongs to Mishmi People of Bodaru, Chittangam, etc. villages where clans like Tayang, Tindya, Tailu, etc. were setting prior to 1950.
1.2 The are was proposed for acquisition by Army after Indo- Chinese 1962 war but due to strong protest from the villagers the same could not be initiated. Meanwhile, in 1977 the above mentioned land was notified vide Notification No.FOR/118/68 Dtd. 22/9/1977 as Denning Reserve Forest ignoring the objections of the people. Thereafter, in 1980 process was started for acquisition of said land to set up Army Brigade HQ.
1.3 Meanwhile, as it was declared as a reserve forest area, proposal was sent for de-reservation of 720 Ha of land to PCCF. As per records 309.75 Ha of land falls under Denning RF whereas 410.25 Ha of land falls under USF area. But de- reservation for 720 Ha of land was taken up. The then Deputy Commissioner merely issued an NOC allowing forest land to be acquired by army. Accordingly, Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India approved de-reservation of 720 Ha of said disputed forest land in principle subject to payment of the cost of NPV and CA vide their No.8-172/84-FC Dtd. 18/9/2002. Accordingly, Army paid Rs.1,84,64,000/-(Rupees one crore eighty four lakhs sixty four thousand) only to the Forest Department.
3.1 The said land in question was a community land prior to issue of notification of Forest Department declaring it as Denning Reserve Forest as per Assam Forest Regulation 1891. Whether sections 5,6 & 7 of the Assam Forest Regulation,1891 were maintained while constituting it as a Reserve Forest or not, may be known to the Divisional Forest Officer, Tezu.23
3.2 Though it is considered as Reserve Forest yet Jhum cultivation is practised by local people in this area/land from time to time."
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a brief history of the disputed land prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohit District, which reads as follows:
"GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LOHIT DISTRICT : TEZU BRIEF HISTORY OF DISPUTED KLP LAND FOR ARMY BRIGADE AT DENNING, LOHITPUR IN LOHIT DISTRICT:::::::ARUNACHAL PRADESH 1.1 The handing over of 1800 acres of KLP land for locating Army Brigade HQ in Denning, Lohitpur could not be materialized due to strong objection from the original land owners of said area. The land originally belongs to Mishmi people of Dingbom, Tabangam, Sioliang, Chingring, Cheppagam, Parlaliang, Badaro where clans like Boo, Kathak, Drai, Tayeng, tindya were settling.
1.2 The AREA WAS PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION BY Army after 1962 war but due to strong protest from the villagers same could not be initiated. Meanwhile, in 1977 the above mentioned land was notified vide Notification NO.FOR/118/68 dated 22/9/1977 as Denning Reserved Forest ignoring the objections of the people. Thereafter, in 1980 process was started by the then Deputy Commissioner Smti. P.M. Singh for acquisition of those land to set up Brigade HQ. Representations were submitted to Smti. P.M. Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner by public leaders, land owners etc. but the Deputy Commissioner refused to hear the plea of the people and went ahead for acquiring the said land. A draft Notification was sent to the State Govt. under Section-4 of Land Acquistion Act on 12/2/1980. But said draft Notification was not published in official Gazettee and thereafter process under the land acquisition act was ignored.
1.3 Meanwhile, as it was declared as reserved forest area, proposal was sent for de-reservation of 1800 acres of land to PCCF. The DFO processed de-reservation of 410.25 acres land under Denning RF and asked the Deputy Commissioner to process acquisition of 309.75 acres of land falling under USF. But the Deputy Commissioner directed DFO to process de- reservation of 309.75 acres of USF land also alongwith 410.25 acres of RF land and as per direction of DC, de-reservation of 720 Hect. i.e. 1800 acres of land was taken up. The Deputy Commissioner merely issued an NOC allowing forest land to be acquired by Army. Accordingly, Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India approved de-reservation of 720 Hect. i.e. 1800 acres of said disputed forest land in principle subject to the condition of 24 payment of compensation vide their No.8-172/84-FC dated 18/9/2002. Accordingly, Army paid Rs.1,84,65,000/- to the Forest department.
1.4 Consequent upon it, survey was proposed for handing over land to Army. But survey could not be conducted due to objection raised by the original land owners.
2.1 From records it is seen that proper procedure for acquisition of village land was not adopted by the District Authority ignoring the plea of the people. The land owners were raising objections for acquisition since land 40 years for which DCs could not processed the same. Even USF are which did not fall under the forest area was shown as forest land and compensation was paid to forest department for afforestation instead to land owners. The District Authority was asked again to ear-marked double of the land for reservation liew of the are de-reserved. Accordingly, Dalai Reserve Forest was proposed which again deprives the traditional rights of the people over their traditional Jhum and hunting land.
2.2 From the records it reveals that DC had only issued NOC to acquire the said disputed forest land and since the land has not acquired as per procedure, handing over of said land to Army by DC does not arise.
2.3 The plea of land owners were ignored by the District Authority in the past for which land owners are agitating over proposed handing over of the said land to Army. There are human habitations and cultivation fields in the area and if they are evicted from the said land, without payment of compensation, it will render them homeless and landless.
2.4 Since the land in question was shown as Forest land and Forest department was paid compensation, the onus of handing over said land falls with forest department.
(Y.D. Thongchi) IAS Deputy Commissioner, Lohit District ::: Tezu"
36. Facts and circumstances reveal that the forest villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam village, who were living in deep forest for centuries together were oblivious of any declaration of Reserve Forest and were happily living in their ancestral dwellings without any disturbance whatsoever. Apparently, the State Government also did not take into notice the Forest villagers of Bodaru and Chittngam village while taking necessary steps for constitution of the "Denning Reserve Forest". In the vast area of the "Denning 25 Reserve Forest" around 6,541 hectares of land declared and notified by the State Government, apparently village Bodaru and Chittangam got included in the notified area by default.
37. On bare perusal of the above documents it clearly reveal that the State Government admits the existence of Forest village in the "Denning Reserves Forest" but very surprisingly, the State Government could not rise to the occasion either to address the issue by rehabilitating the forest villagers by duly compensating them or by awarding due compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.
38. The trouble started brewing when the State Government on the request of the Central Government decided to divert 720 hectares of land of the Reserve Forest for settlement of KLP (Key Location Point) Brigade Hq at Lohitpur for the Indian Army.
39. The Army authority as the user authority agreed to abide by the condition imposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest as per provision of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Army authority also deposited Rs.1,84,64,000‟00 on 17.08.2001 being the costs of compensatory Aforestation Plantation to be created over equivalent area. But unfortunately, the forest villagers of Bodaru and Chittangam village were just ignored and forgotten while doing the groundwork for handing over the Forest land area to the Indian Army.
26
40. The petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the Gazette Notification No.119/71 dated 16.02.1973, issued under Section 5 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, by the Chief Conservator of Forests & Ex-Officio Secretary(Forests), Arunachal Pradesh Administration, Shillong and the Gazette Notification No.118/68 dated 23.09.1977, issued under Section 17 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891 by the Secretary(Forests), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, declaring the Denning Reserve Forests, in so far as it includes 275 hectares of land of the petitioner and other land owners of Bodaru and Chittangam village with prayers for quashing the subsequent orders including the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.03.2005 and the Order No.LRE-5723/06 dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu, Lohit District.
41. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners, who are simple tribal villagers residing in deep forest from time immemorial, were either ignored or conveniently forgotten with a design to deny them their legitimate rights as citizen of the country and the law of the land was never ever applied to give them the benefit of adequate compensation for acquiring their hearth and home. The poor villagers are now going to be uprooted from their land without considering their rehabilitation.
42. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the poor tribal villagers living in the remote border areas of the 27 country, may be rustic and tribal, but as citizen of India, they are aware of the requirement of the Army and the strategic importance of the location of the land belonging to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has instructions to submit that the petitioners would not have any objection if the respondent authorities rise to the occasion to resolve the issue by making payment of adequate compensation for the land belonging to the villagers.
43. The petitioner, relying on the provisions of "COMPENSTATION", as provided under Section 11(3)(iv) of the Assam Forests Regulation,1891, the Balipare, Tirap, Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 and also the Arunachal Pradesh(Land Records and Settlement) Act, 2000 has made alternative prayer for compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in terms of the accrued right of the tribal people under the Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Dwellers(Recognition of Forests Rights) Act, 2006, the petitioner has also made an alternative prayer seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay adequate land compensation to the petitioner and other land owners of Bodaru and Chittagam area for having acquired 275 hectares of their ancestral land situated at Bodaru and Chittangam are/village in terms the recent policy guidelines, for payment of compensation i.e. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008. 28
44. Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, representing the State respondents, contended that the Denning Reserve Forests was constituted in the year 1977 in terms of the provisions of Sections 5,6 and of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891.The petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the Notification dated 23.09.1977, after a lapse of 32 years. Therefore, she submitted that the writ petition is barred under the doctrine of estoppels acquiesces and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches in seeking relief sought for. In support of her contention, learned State Government counsel relied on the following decisions-
(i) 2009(1) SCC 168 : City Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu, and
(ii) 2008(16) SCC 198 : Parag Construction vs. State of Maharastra.
In City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala,(supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"26. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing a writ. The principle is that the courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum."29
45. In Parag Construction v. State of Maharashtra,(2008) 16 SCC 198, Hon‟ble Supreme Court analyzing the attendant fact of the case held as follows: :
"We find that the TPS was finalised on 7-7-1978 and right from 1972 to 1978, the proceedings before the arbitrator were in progress. If the appellant-petitioners claimed to have come on the property by way of an auction-purchase in the year 1981, which included Final Plot No. 22, it cannot be believed that the appellant-petitioners would have no idea about the state of affairs regarding the Scheme, which was already finalised in 1978.
47. There is a clear reference to the Town Planning Scheme II of Borivali in the certificate dated 24-9-1981 which is a basic document of the appellant-petitioners. It is again difficult to believe that the appellant-petitioners did not have idea that the possession of this plot was already taken by the arbitrator in the year 1980 itself from the Velkars. At any rate, at that stage, when the possession was taken, if at all anybody had any grievance, it was the Velkars and not the appellant-petitioners, because the appellant-petitioners were nowhere on the scene on that date. Therefore, it could not lie in the mouth of the appellant-petitioners that the possession was illegally taken from the Velkars or was not taken at all. There are enough documents on record to prove that the possession was actually taken and was thereafter handed over to the Corporation."
46. In both the above decisions (1) City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2) Parag Construction v. State of Maharashtra, (supra) the writ petitioners had the knowledge of the Government action. To refuse relief to the person approaching the High Court for unexplained delay and the laches there has to be inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ. In ordinate delay in action would be counted from the date of knowledge. Unfortunately, in this case the State respondent could not place any record to show that the poor Tribal villagers had the knowledge of the State action. Apparently, the villagers, who were living peacefully ever before, unmindful of State action, got the message of being thrown away, when the State 30 decided to give their land to the Army. Consequently, this action of the State triggered cause of action, for the entire exercise by the villagers.
47. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 1998 (4) GLT 416. DHIRENDRA CH. ROY -VS-- UNION OF INDIA, where in it has been held as follows:
"It has been held in Sethi -vs-Union of India, AIR 1975 s. C. 2164 para-9) that the delay cannot be a bar where 'the Government have been holding out hopes to the petitioner from time to time. In this case this Court first issued a Notice of motion calling upon the Respondents to show- cause as to why a writ should not be issued,and then after hearing the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court issued a Rule and now at the hearing stage I would not throw tout this petition on the ground of delay in the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above."
48. In yet another decision reported in (2008) 8 SCC 445(para 4) : Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, it has been held as follows:
"4. In our view, the High Court had fallen into error in not holding that the appellant had sufficiently explained why the writ petition could not be moved or why it was moved after 4 years of the decision of the State Government. Since the appellant had filed a representation/review of the decision of the State Government, it was expected by him that an order should be passed on the said representation/review. Therefore, in our view, the delay in moving the writ application against the decision of the State Government was sufficiently explained by the appellant and, therefore, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge."
49. The petitioners were pursuing with the matter diligently immediately after coming to know that hearth and home belonging to them have been taken away surreptitiously. Considering the 31 facts and circumstances of the case, the delay, in approaching the writ court, which has been properly explained, shall not take away the equitable relief that may be available to the petitioners. More so, when the fact of stealing away of their rights, were not within the knowledge of the petitioners. To negate or debar a relief by a writ court, for delay in taking appropriate action, knowledge of both sides about arising of a right to relief due to illegal state action and consequent laches or inaction to take resort to appropriate legal relief shall be necessary. This is a case where there was apparently no knowledge on the part of the State authority that their action has taken away the rights of the villagers, so also the villagers had no knowledge that their right to live in the village got extinguished due to State action.
50. More so, if the State would have knowledge of the existence of Forest villagers and had taken cognizance of such existence, definitely there would have been some negotiation with the villagers. Some action for relief or rehabilitation would have been forthcoming in this regard. Absolute inaction and no knowledge syndrome of the State, regarding the existence of the Forest villagers reflects, either the state authority ignored their existence or did not conveniently notice their existence. Though official handing over of the land to the Army was given on 08.05.2008, but actual possession is yet to be given effect.
51. This is a case, where neither the State authority apparently had the knowledge that a large numbers of forest 32 villagers were peacefully residing inside the Denning Reserve Forest, nor the poor forest villagers had the information either formally or informally that illegal state action has stolen away their ancestral dwellings. In the circumstances, it would not be fair to attribute knowledge of the State action on the poor villagers from the date of notification, to cast of the relief sought for. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the question of delay departing equity would not arise in the instant case.
52. Consequently, without lingering the discussions any further, in view of the above, I find that the Gazette Notification No.119/71 dated 16.02.1973 issued under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and the Gazette Notification No.118/68 dated 23.09.1977, issued under section 17 of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, proposing and constituting the Denning Reserve Forest covering the area of Bodaru and Chittamgam villages, is in violation of provisions of the Assam Forests Regulation, 1891, and the Balipara, Tirap, Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 and such other related notifications, are liable to be declared null and void. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner and other land owners, who are patriotic Indian citizens, living in the villages boardering China are aware of their duties and responsibilities towards Nation building and they are agreeable to give away their rights over their ancestral land, for being utilized for Key Location Point (KLP), by the Indian Army, for the service of the Nation. 33
Learned counsel submitted that nonetheless, the villagers are entitled to land compensation as envisaged under different Acts, Rules and policy, governing the field, to enable them to decently rehabilitate in another location.
53. Therefore, in view of the above development, I propose to direct the respondent authorities to rise to the occasion, to make an effort to settle the dispute with the Tribal villagers by way of amicable settlement, by making payment of adequate land compensation to the individual land owners or by relocating the Tribal villages of Bodaru and Chittangam, to a suitable location, to enable them to rehabilitate. In the facts and circumstances, I further direct that the entire process shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
54. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, I pass no order as to costs.
JUDGE nk