- (1.) This application under Article 32 of the Constitution is by two petitioners - Assam Rifles Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. and a retired Major-General of the Indian Army who for some time was the Inspector-General of the Assam Rifies. It has been claimed in this application that on the North-eastern extremity of India between the latitudes 27 and 28 and both sides of longitude 97 within the former Tirup District within the NEFA area and now in Arunachal Pradesh lies a large territory which is a part of India where under the motivation supplied by the petitioner No. 2 when he was Inspector-General of Assam Rifles, a programme for settling retired defence personnel, particularly from Assam Rifles had been undertaken. It is maintained that about 200 retired personnel with their families came to inhabit the area on the basis of a scheme approved by the Government of India. The scheme assured, as alleged, allotment of land, grant of title-deeds in respect of land allotted facility for movement by air to and fro from Mohanbari, freedom to develop the allotted areas, grant of advances by way of loan, provision of marketing facility for disposal of surplus produce, guarantying supply of essential commodities, provision of basic requirements of life and extension of adequate encouragement for an all-round economic development of the area The Co-operative Society was formed with the object of ameliorating the conditions of the settlers and for improving their economic lot. The petitioners have placed reliance on some correspondence between different authorities both of the State Government as also the center and have asked for directions from this Court to the respondents for grant of the reliefs indicated in the Writ Petition.
(2.) Two affidavits in opposition have been filed - one by the Government of India through a Deputy Secretary and the other by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Director of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Most of the assertions made by the petitioners have been denied in the counter-affidavits. Therein it has been contended that funds have been set apart and the basic facilities have been provided. It has been averred in counter-affidavits that as land was not allotted to petitioner No. 2, he not being entitled to the same as he did not belong to the Assam Rifles and the scheme was for rehabilitation of retired personnel from that Defence Unit, he has engineered this application. Petitioner No. 2 who appeared-in person before us has categorically stated that he is no more interested in any personal allotment.
(3.) Admittedly there is a scheme formulated to regulate habitation in and improvement of the area. Having heard the petitioner No. 2 and learned Counsel for the respondents, we arc of the prima facie view that habitation in this area should be encouraged. Territories of China and Burma abut the area in question. It is contended that if the area is suitably inhabited by Indian citizens and is developed it would be in the interest of the country. The matter appears to have political overtone and in the absence of adequate material placed before the Court we do not think it would be appropriate for us to go into the matter and dispose it of as an ordinary dispute. On the other hand, it would in our view be expedient if the matter is directed to be disposed of by the Central Government.;