Court issued notice on petition seeking release of assessed land-acquisition compensation.

The twenty petitioners, claiming to belong to the Doji-Kena Clan, instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the assertion that they shared a common cause of action.

Approximately 300 hectares of land belonging to the Doji-Kena Clan were acquired in connection with the 2000 MW Subansiri Lower Hydroelectric Project (SLHP).

A Rehabilitation and Settlement Agreement had earlier been executed on 5 September 2001, followed by successive surveys and reassessments.

The competent State authority, stated to be the jurisdictional District Commissioner, assessed compensation at ₹1,04,32,182 per hectare, amounting in total to ₹312,96,54,600.

Alleging that the assessed compensation had not been released, the petitioners sought its immediate payment together with interest and other consequential reliefs.

Whether the petitioners’ grievance concerning non-release of the assessed compensation for land acquired for the SLHP warranted consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether notice should issue to the Union of India, NHPC, and the concerned authorities of Arunachal Pradesh in relation to the petitioners’ claim for release of ₹312,96,54,600 with interest.

The petition was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions for enforcement of legal rights and for other constitutionally permissible purposes.

At this interlocutory stage, the Court applied the procedural principle that a writ petition disclosing an arguable grievance should be issued notice to the concerned respondents before final adjudication.

The Court did not determine the legality of the acquisition, the correctness of the compensation assessment, entitlement to interest, or the petitioners’ title to the land at this stage.

The petitioners pleaded a common factual and legal grievance: land attributed to the Doji-Kena Clan had been brought within the SLHP acquisition process, compensation had allegedly been assessed by the competent authority, and the assessed amount remained unpaid.

Since the claim involved substantial compensation and raised questions requiring responses from the Union Government, NHPC, and the Arunachal Pradesh authorities, the Court considered it appropriate to issue notice rather than decide the merits summarily.

Notices were treated as served on respondents 1, 4, 5, and 6 through their appearing counsel, while the petitioners were directed to serve respondents 2 and 3 by speed post.

It issued notice, returnable on 4 November 2026, and directed that the matter be listed on that date.

Formal notice to respondents 1, 4, 5, and 6 was dispensed with because their counsel accepted service; the petitioners were directed to supply copies of the petition and annexures to those counsel within two working days and to take steps for service upon NHPC and its General Manager, respondents 2 and 3, by speed post within the same period.