Delhi High Court - Orders
Suhas Chakma vs National Human Rights Commission on 16 April, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:19.04.2021
22:38:35
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4731/2021 and CM APPL. 14598/2021
SUHAS CHAKMA ..... Petitioner
Through; Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Mr.
Chirag Tuteja, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 16.04.2021
1. This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 31st January, 2021 passed by the NHRC.
3. The brief background to this petition is that the Petitioner claims to be representing 156 Chakma families, who have been displaced due to the construction of the Green Field Airport at Holongi, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. The Petitioner moved the NHRC seeking various prayers, which are as under:-
"The Chakmas face institutionalized racial discrimination and the NHRC had to approach the Supreme Court of India for the protection of their lives and liberties in the case of National Human Rights Commission vs State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr [1996 SCC (1) 742]. Not only the said judgment of 1996 remains unimplemented as on date, their situation because of insitutionalised discrimination remains deplorable. It is in this context that W.P.(C) 4731/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:19.04.2021 22:38:35 the Adviser (PAMD), NITI Aayog in the Meeting of Public Investment Board (PIB) held on 11.1.2019 with respect to f the Greenfield Airport at Holongi in Itanagar asserted that "Since the earmarked land involves the settlement of Chakma refugees, resettlement and rehabilitation needs to be appropriately taken care of."
Copy of the Meeting of Public Investment Board (PIB) held on 11.1.2019 is appended and marked as ANNEXURE-5.
However, given the vulnerable status of these marginalised Chakmas, the LRRA Act under which the lands were acquired has effectively been set aside for rehabilitation and resettlement of the Chakma families displaced by the Greenfield Airport at Holongi in Itanagar. In the light of these facts, the Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRA) requests the National Human Rights Commission to direct the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India and the State of Arunachal Pradesh to:
- Submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Detailed Project Report with respect to the Chakma project displaced families with (i) activities specified for rehabilitation and resettlement; (ii) budget allocated for each activity; and (iii) amount utilized for each activity as on date.
- Provide details of payment/compensation made to each project affected family as per Section 31 of the LLRA Act, which, inter alia states that "(2) The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award shall include all of the following, namely:-- (a) rehabilitation and resettlement amount payable to the family; (b) bank account number of the person to which the rehabilitation and resettlement award amount is to be transferred...."
- Pay solatium to each project affected Chakma family as per Section 30 of the LARR Act, 2013 and the same be deposited in beneficiary's account;
W.P.(C) 4731/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:19.04.2021 22:38:35- Pay interests at the rate of 15% as per Section 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 for the period from taking possession until the compensation shall have been so paid or deposited:
- Pay entitlements/minimum compensation package as per Second Schedule of the LARR Act, 2013 including (i) choice of annuity or employment, (ii) subsistence grant for displaced families for a period of one year, (iii) transportation cost for displaced families, (iv) cattle shed/petty shops cost, (v) one- time grant to artisan, small traders and certain others, (vi) one-time Resettlement Allowance, and
(vii) proof of exemption from stamp duty and registration fee.
Ensure establishment of infrastructural facilities and basic minimum amenities as per Third Schedule of the LARR Act, 2013 and submit a status report; and
- Take any other measures as the NHRC deems fit and proper."
5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that even on the previous occasion, the NHRC was approached by some of the families and it had passed a detailed order. Thereafter, the matter was closed by the NHRC. Similarly, the Petitioner's submission is that a report ought to have been sought from the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
6. The Court has perused the previous order passed by the NHRC at page 78 of the petition. It is clear that the main issue relates to the resettlement of the families and also compensation. For these reliefs, the State of Arunachal Pradesh ought to be impleaded as a party. Further, certain assurances given by the State Government are also relied upon by the Petitioner. In view of the said assurances, the earlier complaint before the NHRC was also closed. Considering that the issues relate to an airport in W.P.(C) 4731/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:19.04.2021 22:38:35 Itanagar, there is a long history involving the Chakma families and the State government, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners ought to implead the necessary parties and approach the High Court of appropriate jurisdiction for seeking their reliefs. Moreover, the mere fact that NHRC is located in Delhi would not be sufficient to entertain a writ petition before this Court, as per the settled legal position. The NHRC as a national body would also be amenable to jurisdiction even in the appropriate High court.
7. The petition is liable to be rejected, leaving the remedies of the Petitioner open to be agitated before the appropriate High Court, in accordance with law.
8. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. This court has not gone into the merits of the petition and the withdrawal of this petition shall not be construed against the Petitioners.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 16, 2021 MR/T W.P.(C) 4731/2021 Page 4 of 4