T C TELI M L A Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed by Sri Tana Ckamdir Teli, Member of Legislative Assembly of 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency (ST constituency) of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for certain reliefs against the eviction drives and demolition of the existing infra-structure and amenities available in the areas bordering Assam and Arunachal Pradesh comprised in the said 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency.

(2.) The facts as stated in the writ petition briefly are that prior to January 21, 1972 the areas now comprised in the State of Arunachal Pradesh were part of the State of Assam. By the North Eastern Areas (Re-organization) Act, 1972, these areas were formed into a Union Territory with effect from 21 st January, 1972, and the said Union Territory was named as Aruanachal Pradesh, and subsequently the said Union Territory was converted into the State of Arunachal Pradesh. But after the constitution of the said Union Territory and the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the demarcation of territorial boundaries between the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam was to take place and various meetings between the representatives of the two States took place from time to time for the said purpose of demarcation. On 11.1.1976 a meeting was held at Itanagar attended amongst others by the then Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Sri P.K. Thungon, and the then Home Minister of Assam, and it was, inter alia, agreed in the said meeting for review of boundary demarcation the pending study of the concerned cases, no eviction would be undertaken from either side of the inner line and the status quo would be maintained. Thereafter, on 20th March, 1979 a second round of discussion was held pursuant to some incidents resulting in tension in the Assam-Arunachal Pradseh Border and pursuant to the said discussion it was, inter alia, agreed by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh that they would take steps to restrain the people of Arunachal Pradesh from any attempted encroachment on the Assam side, and it was agreed by the Chief Minister of Assam that he would withdraw the Armed police from the Border with a view to defuse tension. It was further agreed in the said meeting held on 20.3.79 by the two Chief Ministers that in the event of Assam Government finding it necessary to carry out eviction in any area, the Arunachal Pradesh Government would be informed about the same before-hand so that they could either arrange for the withdrawal of the encroachers themselves or depute an officer to be present during the eviction. On 22.5.83, a tripartite meeting was held comprising of the representatives of the Union Government, Assam Government and Arunachal Pradesh Government. The said meeting, in which the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh were present, noted that the High Powered Tripartite Committee comprising of the representatives of the Governments of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and Survey of India had delineated the entire boundary on the map and that the ground demarcation had also been done for 396 kms of Assam-Arunachal Pradesh boundary leaving 308 kms of the boundary to be demarcated on the ground, and it was agreed in the said meeting that the Survey of India should be requested to undertake the ground demarcation of the remaining portion of the boundary immediately and complete it within December, 1983. At the said meeting held on 22.5.83, the two Chief Ministers further agreed that instructions would be issued to the officials of both the sides to exercise restraint and to ensure that matters were not precipitated and peace maintained all along the border. Again on 30.1.84, the two Chief Ministers met at Sibsagar in Assam and reviewed the progress of demarcation of boundary between the two States. On 24.9.85, the Chief Secretaries of the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh discussed the progress of ground survey of the boundary between the two States at Guwahati. On 25.2.86, the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh met again at Itanagar and discussed the issue relating to boundary between the States off Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, on 9.9.86, the Chief Secretary of Assam and the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh discussed the said issue. On 10.7.87, the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh met at Guwahati and discussed the issue relating to boundary between Assam and Arunachall Pradesh and agreed that the demarcation of the boundary should be examined sector by sector and in certain areas where the Arunachal Pradesh Government had no objection, demarcation should be taken up by the Survey of India and in other sectors the Arunachal Pradesh Government would submit concrete proposals and justification in support of adjustments proposed, and discussion should start on those proposals at official level. It was further agreed in the said meeting held on 10.7.87 that status quo as par agreement of 12.4.79 between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh should be maintained and problems, if any, arising out or violation of 1979 agreement should be sorted out in discussion at the official level. This meeting was followed by an official level discussion between the officers of the two States on 4.7.88. Thereafter, on 31.8.91, a meeting took place between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and the boundary problem between the two States were discussed and certain decisions were taken, and it was inter alia, agreed that in respect of disputed areas, status quo should be maintained and no eviction of people or demolition of houses and properties should be undertaken by both the Governments in the disputed areas, but no fresh construction or encroachment would be allowed iin the disputed areas. On 29.6.92, another meeting was held between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and their officials on the boundary problem between Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. On 12.8.95 a meeting was again held at Itanagar on the inter-state boundary matters between the two States when the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh and the Minister, P.W.D., Industry, Youth Affairs and Plain & Backward Area, Assam, amongst others were present and after detailed discussion the meeting recommended that all the past agreements between the two States should be honoured; that no breach of peace should be allowed to take place in the disputed areas; and any conflict arising in the disputed areas should be settled as was agreed upon by the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh in the agreement reached between them and that maintenance and repair works of building/roads and other public utility services should be allowed to be undertaken by the respective authorities of the two States in the disputed areas in respect of such assets to honour the status quo as was agreed to by the two Chief Ministers on 10.7.87. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid agreements between the Chief Ministers of the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh for maintenance of status quo in the disputed areas, the officers of the State of Assam, and particularly, the Forest Officials of Assam have been conducting eviction drives causing huge damage to the properties of the local people of Arunachal Pradesh. In this context, the petitioner has stated that on 5.2.97 at Deuka village about 46 Forest Officials belonging to Assam entered into the village and destroyed the Primary School buildings, drinking water supply well and granary houses, and again on 5.3.97 another eviction was conducted by the Assam Forest Officials led by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Lakhimpur, at Borsetum village under Kimin Revenue Circle and destroyed ring-well, dwelling houses, etc. The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition that the State of Assam has filed Original Suit No. 1/89 before the Supreme Court of India challenging the action of the Election Commission in treating the said disputed areas bordering the State of Arunachal Pradesh as part of the Parliamentary Constituencies of the State of Arunachal Pradesh during the elections of 1989. It has further been stated in the writ petition that by an interim order dated 10.11.89, the Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to hold elections in the disputed areas in the manner as indicated by the Court in order dated 10.1.89 in C.M.P. No.32535/89 in Original Suit No. 2/89 filed by the State of Assam in which similar dispute has arisen with regard to the disputed areas bordering the State of Assam and the State of Nagaland. It has been further stated in the writ petition that in both the aforesaid cases the interim arrangements as allowed by the Supreme Court have been continuing and that the similar policy of not disturbing the existing position in the disputed areas till the border disputes are finally resolved through negotiation or otherwise, need to be maintained to avoid unnecessary escalation of tension in the border areas and to avoid unnecessary hardship to the inhabitants of the disputed areas. In the aforesaid facts as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the action of the respondents in carrying out the eviction drives, demolition of the existing infra-structure and amenities available to the areas bordering Assam, and more specifically the areas comprised in the 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency bordering Assam, be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the concerned respondents not to indulge in such eviction or demolition drives and to maintain status quo in the said areas and allow developmental works in the areas till the disputes are resolved. The petitioner has also prayed for interim orders during the pendency of the Civil Rule directing the concerned respondents not to carry out any eviction or demolition drives in the disputed areas and not to obstruct developmental works in the areas and to maintain status quo in terms of the agreements.

(3.) When this writ petition was moved before us on 16.5.97 by Mr. A .Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, we entertained a doubt as to whether the writ petition raised a dispute between the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and was such over which the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to the exclusion of all other Courts and as to whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. We therefore called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Roy, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. N.N. Saikia, and the learned Advocate General, Assam, Mr. P.G. Boruah, to address us on the question of maintainability of the writ petition.