Supreme Court directs solatium and interest for Jhum land acquired under 1947 Regulation, bars reopening of concluded awards

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard appeals by the State of Arunachal Pradesh against a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench) challenging the compensation fixed for acquisition of Jhum lands under the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 and whether statutory benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) applied to such acquisitions for the Trans‑Arunachal Highway.

The Court allowed the appeals in part and clarified the interplay between the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act. It held that the expression “reasonable compensation” in Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations must be harmonised with contemporary legislative standards and that claimants were entitled to solatium and interest as provided under the 2013 Act. The Court emphasised that subordinate or special legislation must be read in light of constitutional values and later general enactments, but it cautioned against disturbing concluded transactions and declined to permit reopening of acquisitions where compensation had been “finally determined, accepted and disbursed.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The judgment also noted that to construe Section 10 so as to deny solatium and interest would be unequal treatment and “would not withstand scrutiny under Article 14.”

Background

The dispute arose after the State issued notifications under Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations on 17.02.2014 to acquire private Jhum lands for construction of the Trans‑Arunachal Highway along the Potin–Bopi (Godak) corridor. Estimates communicated to landowners omitted solatium and additional interest. Representations before the Deputy Commissioner were rejected on the ground that Section 10 required only “reasonable compensation.” The landowners appealed to the Governor under Section 17 of the 1947 Regulations; by order dated 14.08.2020 the Governor rejected the appeal on the basis that the 2013 Act did not apply to acquisitions under the 1947 Regulations.

The claimants then filed writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court. A Single Judge allowed relief on 25.04.2022, holding that State laws could not be repugnant to central legislation and directing that compensation be computed as per the model of the 2013 Act. On intra‑Court appeal the Division Bench modified the order to the extent of holding that the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act operated in different legislative spheres but still confirmed entitlement to statutory benefits from the 2013 Act. The Division Bench further indicated that acquisitions completed under the 1947 Regulations could be reopened for reassessment.

The State challenged the Division Bench order before this Court. The Supreme Court accepted that the 1947 Regulations were a special pre‑constitutional enactment intended to recognise customary rights in Jhum lands and that Section 10 dispensed with the detailed procedure of the 1894/2013 Acts. Nevertheless, because “reasonable compensation” was open‑ textured, the Court held it could not be read so as to produce arbitrary or unequal outcomes contrary to Articles 14 and 300A. The Court observed that the 2013 Act represented Parliament’s considered standard for just recompense, including solatium and interest, and directed that respondents were entitled to those benefits. The Court noted the subsequent legislative intervention — the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2024 — which added a proviso to Section 10 stating that compensation shall not be less than that computed under the law of land acquisition in force at the relevant time; the Court observed the amendment confirmed the interpretive conclusion but operated prospectively.

The Supreme Court directed payment of any arrears of solatium and interest within three months and clarified that the State retained the right to recover such amounts from ultimate beneficiaries as per law. It held that concluded acquisitions where compensation had been finally determined, accepted and disbursed could not be reopened, set aside the High Court order to that extent, and ordered recomputation in pending matters. The Court also directed that its interim order dated 03.07.2023 concerning deposit of amounts with the Deputy Commissioner be given effect and that any deposits representing solatium and interest be disbursed to true landowners.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL Nos.11884-11888 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.9585-9589 of 2023) Case Title: THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Versus MIHIN LALING & ORS. Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, learned counsel