Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order of the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court directing the Centre to deposit 50% of Rs 418 crore as compensation for land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh, amid allegations of forgery.
The case pertains to the acquisition of 537 acres of land in Bame village under Basar Circle, Leparada district, for a Corps Ammunition Point under the Ministry of Defence. The land lies in a remote area near the Indo-China border.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Appearing for the Union government, Additional Solicitor General S D Sanjay told a bench led by Justice KV Viswanathan that a single individual, Dagli Riba, allegedly submitted forged and fabricated powers of attorney on behalf of 102 landowners to seek reassessment of the compensation value in the Reference Court.
The Centre had earlier fixed the market rate at Rs 12.9 lakh per acre, and Rs 70 crore was disbursed to landowners, who, according to the government, had accepted the compensation and signed deeds of acceptance in November 2023.
The authorities argued that Riba, acting alone, attempted to fraudulently inflate the compensation amount to nearly Rs 80 lakh per acre—almost eight times the originally assessed value.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Despite objections from the government, the Reference Court revised the land value, raising the total compensation to Rs 418 crore. The Gauhati HC subsequently ordered the Centre to deposit half that amount (Rs 209 crore).
However, the Supreme Court questioned the drastic escalation in valuation and noted that it was the government itself that had earlier agreed to deposit 10% of the disputed amount. Accordingly, it directed the Centre to deposit Rs 41.8 crore with the registry of the Itanagar Bench and stayed the operation of the Reference Court’s order.
The government maintains that the reassessment was fraudulent and motivated by personal gain. It argued that no other landowners had approached the Reference Court for enhanced compensation.
The case highlights concerns over land acquisition processes in sensitive border areas and underscores the need for vigilance against fraudulent claims in large-scale defence infrastructure projects.