http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KHUDIRAM CHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1993

BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1461            1993 SCR  (3) 401  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 615 JT 1993 (3)   546  1993 SCALE  (2)682

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.   MOHAN, J.- Leave granted. 2.   Both  these civil appeals arise out of the judgment  of the Gauhati High Court dated April 30, 1992 rendered in C.R. No. 166 of 1984.  The short facts are as under. 3.   The  parties will be referred to as the  appellant  and the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4.   The  appellant along with his family members and  other 56  families  migrated  to  India on  March  30,  1964  from erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, due to disturbances prevailing at that time.  They took shelter in a  Government camp Abhoypur Block in Tirap District. 5.   The  appellant  and  other 56  families  are  known  as Chakmas  of  the erstwhile East Pakistan.   They  being  the refugees  were given shelter in Government camp at  Ledo  in the  District of Dibrugarh, Assam.  Later on, in 1966,  they were  shifted  to  the  camp at Miao  within  the  State  of Arunachal Pradesh. 6.   Arunachal Pradesh was called NEFA (North-East  Frontier Agency) prior to 1972.  On January 21, 1972 it was given the status of Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh.  It became a full-fledged State on February 20, 1987.  Geographically, it is  situated  on  the north-east of India  and  has  a  long international  border  with Bhutan, China and  Burma  (Burma presently called Myanmar).  It is the largest State areawise in  the north-east region, even larger than Assam  which  is the  most  populous  State.   The  population  of  Arunachal Pradesh  according to the 1981 census is 6.32 lakhs.  It  is scattered  over  12 towns and 3257 villages.  There  are  26 major tribes.  Broadly speaking, the people in 618 the State can be divided into three cultural groups, on  the basis of their socioregional affirmities.               (i)   The Monpas and Sherdukpens of Tawang and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

             West Kemeng District;               (ii)  Khamptis  and  Singpos  inhabiting   the               entire eastern part of the State; and               (iii) the   Neotes   and   Wanchos   adjoining               Nagaland in the Tirap District. 7.   In the year 1966, the State Government drew the  Scheme known  as  Chakma Resettlement Scheme  for  these  refugees. Areas were earmarked for their settlement in different parts of the State and accordingly they were asked to move to  the areas earmarked for them.  In all, 5 Schemes were sanctioned for  their  settlement (comprising about  3100  families  of refugees) at the cost of more than Rs 2 crores. 8.   The  appellants  along with 56 families  were  allotted lands  in  the villages of Gautampur and  Maitripur.   There were  already a good number of Chakma refugee  families  who were  allotted lands and were living there peacefully.   The appellant  instead  of residing in the said  allotted  areas under  the  Resettlement  Scheme drawn  by  the  Government, strayed  away  from it and negotiated with  the  Local  Raja namely  Ningrunong  Singpo of Damba for an area of  one  sq. mile  of  his private land and got the same  from  the  said Singpo through an unregistered deed dated November 20, 1972. 9.   The  State  would  contend that the  said  transfer  is illegal  because  as  per  Section  7  of  the  BEFRT,  1873 (Regulation 5 of 1873) no person, who is not a native of the District,  would  acquire any interest in the  land  or  the produce  of  the  land beyond the  inner  line  without  the sanction  of  the State Government or such  officer  as  the State  Government  may  appoint  in  this  behalf.   On  the contrary, the stand of the appellant is that since the  date of donation they have been residing and cultivating the said land  and  they  have  developed  the  area  for  habitation purposes. 10.  It  is further alleged on behalf of the appellant  that in  1973, a village panchayat of Joypur village  was  formed after election of the members.  The appellant was  appointed as the Gaon-Bura of the village.  This was with the approval of the Government, in token of which a Sanad dated  November 20, 1975 was issued in his name.  The Deputy Commissioner at Kenonsa  approved  the  transfer  and  the  Extra  Assistant Commissioner, Miao by his Memorandum No. MR 8(A)/75/8648-51, dated April 26, 1976 issued instructions against any attempt to  allot  the  land  to other  and  generally  against  any eviction of the appellants from the said land. 11.  Some  Deori  families who were allotted  lands  in  the adjacent  area of Joypur village attempted to encroach  upon the  lands of the appellant and on a complaint  lodged,  the authorities  concerned i.e. Executive Magistrate at Miao  by his  letter  dated  May  30,  1977  issued  instructions  to Ningrunong  Singpo Rajkumar to turn out the  extra  families from the appellant’s village with a direction to the  Circle Officer,  Diyun  to report compliance.  It  was  after  such intervention   that  such  outsiders  in  due  course   were expelled. 12.  After  obtaining the donation from the Raja by dint  of hard labour they developed the jungle area which was a hilly uneven tract of land.  In view of the +   Bengal Eastem Frontier Regulation 619 tremendous   agricultural   success   the   Tirap   District Authorities granted two Rice Hullar Units in the name of the appellant.   The Chakmas transformed the land into  a  truly self-sufficient village. 13.In  view  of  prosperity and growth of  land  the  nearby villagers sought to dislodge the appellant and the  families

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

by raising various disputes, one of which was that the place cannot  be  utilised  as refugee settlement  and  that  they should  be shifted to another place.  Circle Officer,  Diyun issued  an  order  dated February  15,  1984  directing  the appellant  to  shift  to the vacant land  at  Gautampur  and Maitripur  villages  latest  by  February  24,  1984.    The representation  requesting the Chief Minister  of  Arunachal Pradesh to interfere was of no avail. 14.  The appellant after settling in this unauthorised  land started  committing criminal and illegal activities.   There were several complaints to the effect that the appellant  is encroaching  upon the private lands illegally in  connivance with the local people, particularly, Singpos. 15.  In   order  to  investigate  the  matter   fully,   the Government, vide its letter dated April 4, 1979, directed an inquiry into the whole matter through a Committee comprising of 9 persons with the Deputy Commissioner of the area as the Chairman. 16.  The  said Committee after due  investigation  submitted its report on June 11, 1979, stating therein that about  788 families  of  Refugees  (Chakmas, Deori,  and  Bhutia)  have illegally  encroached upon about 872 hectares in  Miao  Sub- Division alone. 17.  The said Committee observed:                "7.  The fear of the local  people  regarding               heavy  growth of population among the  Chakmas               has  already been stated above and it is  also               well  known to the Government.  But such  fear               may  be true in the case of Deoris  and  Ahoms               too  because  it has been seen that  in  their               case  too  their population is  increasing  by               leaps  and bounds, for instance it  is  learnt               that when they were inducted there were only 6               Ahom families and 32 Deoris, whereas this  has               now increased to 23 and 106 respectively.   We               should, therefore, watch by one method or  the               other  that flow of Chakmas, Deoris and  Ahoms               does not at all take place.  For this  purpose               formal  allotment  of land to each  family  is               very  necessary and further in order to  guard               against new entrants, the DC’s office is  said               to be taking up the issue of identity cards.               9.2.  Land is still available in Innano, Dumba               and  Mudoi, especially after the  eviction  of               four   Chakma  villages  during  March   last.               Singpos  have been known to  induct  outsiders               not  only  without Government’s  approval  but               also by various undesirable methods, this  has               to be properly watched and if found  necessary               we  may have to give exemplary  punishment  to               those  who indulge in such practice.   Already               there  is  some sign of dissension  among  the               local  people  due to the  activities  of  one               Nirunong  of  Kumchai village who  was  mainly               responsible  for inducting Chakmas  in  Jaipur               village,  10  Deori families and  some  others               from  outside.  It has also been seen that  in               Innao village there are six tea garden tribals               who  have  been living and working  since  the               last  10 years with Inner Line passes  renewed               from time to time but               620               obviously  with  the  understanding  that  the               local people would subsequently give them land               for permanent resettlement."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

18.  The  State received complaints that Chakma people  were indulging  in  illegal  activities  such  as  commission  of offences  under  various  lands,  collection  of  arms   and ammunition, establishing contacts with the extremist groups, encroachment  of  adjoining areas.   The  State,  therefore, found  it  necessary  to shift them to a  site  where  other Chakma families were already residing. 19.  It was in these circumstances, by order dated  February 15,  1984,  the State directed the appellant and  the  other Chakmas  to  shift.   The said order  is  to  the  following effect:               "In  connection to this Office Memorandum  No.               LS-4/83/84/2478-79, dated August 6, 1984,  the               Chakmas of Joypur village are hereby  directed               to  shift  to  the  vacant  land  allotted  at               Gautampur  and  Maitripur villages  latest  by               February 25, 1984.               This  may be treated as final notice,  failing               which  legal action will be taken against  the               defaulters." 20.  Questioning the correctness of the order, C.R. No.  166 of 1984 was filed before the High Court of Gauhati. 21.  It was urged:               (i)   The petitioners are citizens of India.               (ii)  Their   fundamental  rights  have   been               infringed.               (iii) The  impugned notice dated February  15,               1984 is illegal, arbitrary and had been issued               in  violation  of the  principles  of  natural               justice. 22.  The  High Court of Gauhati formulated  three  questions for determination:               (1)   Whether  the writ petitioner and the  56               Chakma families now settled in Joypur village,               Miyo   Sub-Division,  Arunachal  Pradesh   are               citizens of India or foreigners?               (2)   If  they  are  not  citizens  of  India,               whether  the authorities concerned have  right               to  give direction to these Chakma  people  to               move to another place?               (3)   Whether   the   impugned   order   dated               February  15,  1984 is  arbitrary,  devoid  of               reason and violative of the provisions of  the               Constitution? 23.  While  urging the first question it was contended  that the  petitioner and the other Chakma families came to  Assam in  1964 and stayed there for some time.  They were  shifted to  Miao  Sub-Division in Arunachal Pradesh.  In  1964,  the territory of Arunachal Pradesh was included in Assam.  Since they  stayed in Assam they must be deemed to be citizens  of India  within the meaning of Section 6-A of the  Citizenship Act,  1955  as amended in 1985.  They  also  contended  that proviso  to Section 2 of Immigrants (Expulsion  from  Assam) Act, 1950 would also protect them. 24.  The  High Court, on an elaborate consideration  of  the provisions  of Citizenship Act, came to the conclusion  that the  language of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act is  very clear.   It  states that persons who have  come  into  Assam before  January  1966 from the specified territory  and  who have  been  ordinarily resident in Assam since the  date  of their entry shall be deemed to be citizens.  Admittedly, the petitioners  therein would not fall under this  category  as they 621 stayed  in  Assam for a short while in  1964.   Accordingly,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

they will not be citizens of India.      25.  On the second question, the High Court referred to Section  7 of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation,  1873. That  section  specifically  prohibits  the  acquisition  of interest  in land by other than the natives of the  district without  the sanction of the State Government.   Admittedly, there  was no sanction of the State Government in favour  of the   petitioners  under  the  said  Regulation   which   is applicable to Arunachal Pradesh.  Besides, clause 9(2)(a) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 prohibits acquisition of land  or any  interest thereon or within the prohibited area  by  any foreigner.   Clause 9(2)(b) states that the local  authority may  impose conditions regarding acquisition of land or  any interest thereof or any other matter deemed necessary in the interest  of public safety.  There was no  controversy  that the  place  where Chakmas were staying is within  the  inner line   which  is  protected  area  notified  by  the   State Government.      26.   In view of the facts, the High Court came to  the conclusion  that  the  petitioners had no right  to  seek  a permanent  place of abode in that area.  The  authority  had every right requiring them to shift. 27.  On the third question, after going through the  various files  produced by the State Government, in the  court,  the High  Court found various complaints against these  Chakmas. They  were  indulging in procuring arms and  ammunition  and were   actively  associating  with   anti-social   elements. Accordingly, it was concluded that the impugned order is not devoid of any reason. 28.  Lastly, the High Court, on  humanitarian  grounds, directed the State Government to give adequate  compensation in the event of these Chakmas being evicted from the  place. The  State  of Arunachal Pradesh has preferred SLP  (C)  No. 12429  of 1992 while Khudiram Chakma has filed SLP  (C)  No. 13767 of 1992.       29.  Mr Gobinda Mukhoty, learned counsel  for  the appellant  urges  that in 1947 the  appellants  were  Indian citizens. Because of the partition of the country they  went over  to the then East Pakistan, presently  Bangladesh.  But when they returned in 1964 to the erstwhile Assam State they stayed there for some time and shifted to Arunachal Pradesh. To  deprive  them of the citizenship would be  violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By mere accident of their  going  over to Arunachal Pradesh,  they  cannot  lose their  citizenship. The learned counsel referred us  to  the various  provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955.  He  urges that  there is evidence, in this case, of donation of  lands in  favour of these appellants by Raja Ningrunong Singpo  of Damba. That was approved by the Deputy Commissioner as  seen from  memorandum  dated April 26, 1976.  The  appellant  was appointed  Gaon-Bura  of Joypur village. In  proof  of  that Sanad  was  issued by the Deputy  Commissioner.  Again,  the Executive  Magistrate had directed the Raja to turn out  the extra  families  occupying  lands  at  Joypur  in  the  area allotted to the appellants and other Chakmas. There is  also evidence on record to show that the Chakmas have been paying taxes including house tax. When that be the position,  there is  no justification at all calling upon the appellants  and the other 56 families to shift.       30.  There was no notice before calling  upon  the appellants  to  shift.  This Court in  Scheduled  Caste  and Weaker Section Welfare Assn. v. State of 622 Karnataka1’,  a  case  arising under  Karnataka  Slum  Areas (Improvement  and  Clearance) Act, 1973,  held  that  before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

eviction   a  slum  dweller  does  have  a  right  to   say. Therefore,  it  is submitted that the principle  of  natural justice applies to non-citizens also. 31.In  Louis De Raedt v. Union of India 2 this Court  took the  view  that  the fundamental  rights  are  available  to foreigners   as   well,   including  Article   21   of   the Constitution. 32.Mr  K.K. Venugopal, learned senior  counsel,  appearing for the State of Assam contends in opposition: 33.The appellants cannot claim to be citizens of India  by invoking  Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act as amended  and incorporated  on December 7, 1985 in pursuance of the  Assam Accord.   In  order to get the benefit of  Section  6-A  two conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said  section must be satisfied simultaneously:               (i)The  persons  who are of  Indian  origin               (viz. undivided India) came before January  1,               1966  to Assam from the  specified  territory;               and               (ii) have been "ordinarily resident" in  Assam               (as  it  existed in 1985) since  the  date  of               their entry into Assam. 34.  Insofar  as the appellants were residing in  Miao  Sub- Division  of  Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh  since  1968 they  did not satisfy these conditions.  As to what  exactly is  the meaning of "ordinarily resident" could be seen  from Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain3. 35.It is true that this Court in Louis De Raedt- took  the view that even a foreigner has a fundamental right, but that fundamental  right is confined only to Article 21  and  does not  include  the  right to move freely  throughout  and  to reside  and stay in any part of the territory of  India,  as conferred under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e).  Such a right  is available  only  to  the  citizens.   The  appellants  being foreigners, cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution  to get  the  same right denied to them under Article  19  since Article 14 cannot operate in regard to a right  specifically withheld from non-citizens.  In support of this  submission, reliance  is placed on Indo-China Steam Navigation Co.  Ltd. v.  Jasjit Singh, Addl.  Collector of customs4 and Louis  De Raedt2. 36.The  land donated in favour of the appellants  by  Raja Ningrunong  Singpo of Damba by donation deed dated  November 20,  1972  is  illegal.  Section 7  of  the  Bengal  Eastern Frontier  Regulation,  1873 and Clause 9 of  the  Foreigners Order,  1948,  which are applicable  to  Arunachal  Pradesh, specifically prohibit such transfer without prior permission of State Government.  No such permission, in this case,  was obtained.    The   tribals  of  North-Eastern   States   are historically protected races.  Part X of the Constitution of India  contains  provisions and laws  governing  them.   The decision  regarding settlement of foreigners is a matter  of policy.   It is well-settled in law that the Court does  not interfere in a matter of governmental policy since it is for the Government to decide. 1 (1991) 2 SCC 604 2 (1991) 3 SCC 554: 1991 SCC (Cri) 886 3 (1961) 1 SCR 576, 590: AIR 1961 SC 58 : 22 ELR 469 4  (1964) 6 SCR 594, 621-22 : AIR 1964 SC 1140: (1964) 2 Cri LJ 234 623 37.On  the question of natural justice before passing  the impugned order dated February 15, 1984 the learned  counsel, producing  the relevant material from the file,  would  urge that  it is not correct to state that the order came  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

issued all of a sudden.  There is abundant material to  show that the question of eviction was an ongoing process,  right from 1978.  Many notices were issued over a period of  years to  shift to Villages Maitripur and Gautampur.   There  were protests  from Chakmas.  From the file it is seen  that  the appellant  was aware of the shift order dated September  26, 1983.   There was also an oral hearing of the same.  It  was because  of  the complaints filed by the  residents  of  the locality  against  the appellant and in view of  the  report that  they were indulging in procuring arms  and  ammunition and were in close contact with anti-social elements.  Taking an overall view of the matter, the impugned order came to be passed.   On  ground  realities, natural  justice  is  fully satisfied. 38.In  support  of  the  above  submissions,  the  learned counsel relied on the following cases:               R.   v.  Secretary  of  State  for  the   Home               Department ex parte Cheblak5.               Lord  Bridge of Harwich, pp. 723-F  to  724-G;               Lord  Templeman,  p. 725J, 726-A  to  C;  Lord               Ackner,  pp.  731-H, 732 G-H,  735  F-J;  Lord               Lowry, p.  737  D-J in Brind v.  Secretary  of               State for the Home Deptt.6               Council  of Civil Service Unions  v.  Minister               for  the  Civil Service7.  McInnes  v.  Onslow               Farne8.               J. R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt.  Ltd. 9               Maharashtra State Board of Secondary &  Higher               Secondary Education v.    K.S. Gandhi10. Satya               Vir Singh v. Union of India 39.However,  the learned counsel fairly conceded that  the Chief  Minister  was willing to hear the appellants  or  any representative  of  their group, additionally,  as  a  post- decisional hearing, even though they had full  opportunities over  a period of four years.  It is his submission that  it must  be  a  post-decisional hearing as  otherwise,  if  the decisions  were  against the appellants a further  round  of litigation would be embarked upon. 40.We  will  proceed to consider the  correctness  of  the above submissions providing the necessary background and the factual matrix. 41.The  history of the mountainous and multitribal  north- east frontier region which is now known as Arunachal Pradesh ascends  for hundreds of years into the mists  of  tradition and  mythology.  According to Pauranic legend, Rukmini,  the daughter  of King Bhishmak, was carried away on the  eve  of her marriage by Lord Krishna himself.  The ruins of the fort at  Bhalukpung are claimed by the Akas as the original  home of  their ancestor Bhaluka, the grandson of Bana  Raja,  who was  defeated by Lord Krishna at Tezpur (Assam).   A  Kalita King, 5    (1991) 2 All ER 319, 331 A-332H, 334A-J (CA) 6    (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL) 7    (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL) 8  (1978) 3 All ER 211, 219, 223 A-J, 229 (Ch D) 9    (1985) 1 SCC 712, 722-723 (paras 12, 13) 10   (1991) 2 SCC 716, 730 (paras 20-22) 11 (1985) 4 SCC 252,263: 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 624 Ramachandra, driven from his kingdom in the plains of Assam, fled  to the Dafla (now Nishang) foothills  and  established there his capital of Mayapore, which is identified with  the ruins  on  the Ita hill.  A place of great sanctity  in  the beautiful lower reaches of the Lohit River, the  Brahmakund, where  Parasuram opened a passage through the hills  with  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

single  blow  of his mighty axe, still  attracts  the  Hindu pilgrims from all over the country. 42.In  the  year  1838, when the  British  took  over  the administrative  control  of Assam from the last  Ahom  King, Shri  Purander  Singh, it was thought  necessary  to  extend elementary regular administration to the adjoining northeast frontier region.  The first important step in this direction was as such initiated with adoption of Regulation V of  1873 empowering   the  then  Lieutenant-Governor  of   Assam   to prescribe  a Line, called ’Inner Line’ with a view  (1)  "to bring the commercial relations of the hills with the  plains under  more stringent control, (2) to prevent the  operation of speculators in ’Caoutchouc’ (raw rubber), (3) to  prevent the spread of tea gardens, and (4) to lay down rules for the possession  of  land and property beyond  the  ’Inner  Line’ without special permits". 43.A  notification bearing No. 1486, dated June  21,  1876 was issued by the Government of India, Foreign Department to the effect that the GovernorGeneral was pleased to  prohibit all  British  subjects  from going  beyond  the  inner  line without   a  pass  under  the  hand  and  seal   of   Deputy Commissioner.     After    covering    the    hilly    areas administratively,  the  whole of tribal region  was  divided into   two   Frontier  Tracts  in  1915.    By   1937,   the administrative  status of NorthEast Frontier Tract could  be effected  to under the Government of India’s  (Excluded  and Partially Excluded Area) Order of 1936. 44.Under  the effective provision of Section 91(1) of  the Government of India Act, 1935, the above Frontier Tract came to  be  known as Excluded Area of Assam.   Again,  the  1942 administrative  change took place as a consequence of  which Tirap  Frontier Tract was carved out of the Sadiya  Frontier Tract.    In   1943,  an  advisor  was  appointed   as   the administrative  head  with a purpose to develop  the  region through gradual penetration of the administrative machinery. 45.Another change was effected in the administrative  set- up  on  January 26, 1950 when the Government  of  Assam  was relieved  of  its  responsibility  for  looking  after   the administration   of   the  Excluded  Area.    However,   the discretionary  power  was vested in the Governor  of  Assam, under the provision of paragraph 18 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and Part B of the Table 20 of the Schedule, who served as the agent of the President of the Union of the Republic of India. 46.In  the course of administrative and  political  events Arunachal Pradesh has travelled from the Tract to the  Union Territory.   Under  the  provision  of  North-Eastern  Areas (Reorganisation)  Act,  1971 (Central Act 81 of  1971),  the present  status  of  Union  Territory  was  granted  to  the erstwhile   North-East  Frontier  Agency  and   renamed   as Arunachal Pradesh on January 21, 1972.  The Union  Territory of  Arunachal Pradesh was placed under the charge  of  Chief Commissioner during that year. 47.The  year  of 1975 also proved eventful  for  Arunachal Pradesh.  On August 15, 1975, then existing Pradesh  Council was  constituted into the Union Territory Legislature.   The panel of then existing five counsellors was 625 constituted   into   Provisional   Council   of   Ministers. Consequent  upon  the  above  change,  the  post  of   Chief Commissioner  was  further  elevated  to  the  position   of Lieutenant-Govemor  on August 15, 1975.  The  first  general election  to Arunachal Legislature was held in the month  of February  1978.  The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative  Assembly has  33  members  in  total, out  of  which  3  members  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

nominated. 48.Earlier,    Arunachal   Pradesh   had    nominated    a representative  in Parliament.  By an Act of the  Government of India in 1971, the Union Territory was provided with  one seat   each  in  Lok  Sabha  and  Rajya  Sabha,  but   these representatives  were nominated by the President  of  India. But at present, Arunachal Pradesh enjoys two elective  seats in the Lok Sabha based on the universal franchise. 49.On February 20, 1987 Arunachal Pradesh was made a full- fledged  State.   Thus,  it will be seen  that  at  no  time Arunachal Pradesh was part of the Territory of the State  of Assam  though it was being administered by the  Governor  of Assam  or the President of India, as the case may  be.   The following Chronological Statement of changes in the  Pattern of  Administration  in  NEFA  occurring  in  P.N.   Luthra’s Constitutional  and Administrative Growth of the  North-East Frontier Agency is useful: 1                     2                       3 1914               1919                    1937 Administered     Administerd by the     Administered by the by the Gover-    Government of Assam    Governor of Assam ment of Assam    with special safeguards  acting in his dis-                                          cretion independe-                                          ntly of the Provi-                                          cial Ministry. 4                   5                         6 1947              1950                      1965 Administered by  Administered by the    Administered as the Governor of   President through    before by the Assam acting on   the Governor of     Governor as agent the advice of the  Assam as his agent  of the President but provincial Ministry acting in his des-  under the general                     cretion under the   supervision and con-                     general supervision  ntrol of the                     and control of       Ministry of Home                    Ministry of External   Affairs.                    Affairs. 50.  Arunachal Pradesh is situate in the North-East of India skirted  by  Bhutan in West, Tibet and China  in  North  and North-East, Burma (Myanmar) in East and Assam in South.   It consists of the sub-mountains and mountainous ranges sloping to the plains of Assam.  Its capital is Itanagar.  It is the largest  State areawise (83,743 sq. kms.) in the  North-East region  even  larger than Assam which is the  most  populous State.  Arunachal Pradesh is the most thinly populated State in  India.   According  to 1991  census  the  population  of Arunachal  Pradesh  is 6.32 lakh and is  scattered  over  12 towns  and  3257  villages.  There are 26  major  tribes  in Arunachal  Pradesh.   Broadly speaking, the  people  in  the State may be divided into three cultural groups on the basis of their socio-regional affinities. 626               (i)   The Monpas and Sherdukpens of Tawang and               West Kemeng District;               (ii)  Khamptis  and  Singpos  inhabiting   the               entire eastern part of the State; and               (iii) The   Noetes   and   Wanchos   adjoining               Nagaland in the Tirap District. 51.  This  is the history of Arunachal Pradesh, a rich  land and  poor  people.   It was in the year  1964  thousands  of Chakma  families  migrated from the then  East  Pakistan  to India.   The  appellant along with other  56  families  also migrated  to India.  Being refugees they were given  shelter in   government  camps  at  Ledo  within  the  district   of Dibrugarh, Assam.  Later on they were shifted to the camp at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

Miao Sub-Division in Tirap District, now within the State of Arunachal  Pradesh  which  was  then  known  as   North-East Frontier  Agency  (NEFA).   In the years  1966-68  the  then Government   drew  up  the  Chakma   resettlement   schemes. Altogether 5 schemes were sanctioned for settlement of 31 00 families  at  a cost of more than Rupees  Two  crores.   The appellants were allotted lands in the villages of  Gautampur and  Maitripur.  The other Chakmas were also staying  there. As  stated earlier, on January 21, 1972 NEFA was  given  the status  of  Union  Territory and was  renamed  as  Arunachal Pradesh.   The  appellants strayed away  from  the  original settlement area allotted to them by the Government under the schemes.   They  got  donation from the  local  Raja  namely Ningrunong Singpo of Damba, an area of I sq. mile at  Joypur Village  which  is inside the Inner Line.  Earlier  we  were referred  to  Bengal  Eastern  Frontier  Regulation,   1873. Clause 2 of the said Regulation states thus:               "It  shall be lawful for the State  Government               to prescribe and from time to time to alter by               notification in the Official Gazette a line to               be  called ’The Inner Line’ in each or any  of               the above-named districts.               The  State Government may, by notification  in               the  Arunachal  Pradesh Gazette  prohibit  all               citizens  of  India  or  any  class  of   such               citizens or any persons residing in or passing               through such districts from going beyond  such               line without a pass under the hand and seal of               the  Chief Executive Officer of such  district               or of such other officer as he may,  authorise               to  grant such pass; and the State  Government               may,  from time to time, cancel or  vary  such               prohibition."               52.   Clause  7 is important.  That  reads  as               follows:               "It  shall not be lawful for any  person,  not               being  a native of the district  comprised  in               the  preamble of this Regulation,  to  acquire               any  interest in land or the product  of  land               beyond  the  said  ’Inner  Line’  without  the               sanction  of  the  State  Government  or  such               officer as the State Government shall  appoint               in this behalf.               Any interest so acquired may be dealt with  as               the State Government or its said Officer shall               direct.               The State Government may also, by notification               in  the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette  extend  the               prohibition  contained in this section to  any               class   of  persons,  natives  of   the   said               districts,  and may from time to time in  like               manner cancel or vary such extension." 53.  Under  Section  3 of the Foreigners Act  of  1946,  the Central  Government  may,  by  order,  make  provision   for prohibiting,   regulating  or  restricting  the   entry   of foreigners into India.  In exercise of power conferred under Section  3  of the said Act Foreigners Order of  1948  dated February 10, 1948 was issued.  Under 627 Clause  9 of the said Order the Central Government  or  with prior sanction, a civil authority may, by order, declare any area to be a protected area for the purposes of this  order. On  such  declaration, the civil authority may,  as  to  any protected  area,  prohibit  any foreigner or  any  class  of foreigners from entering or remaining in the area, impose on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

any  foreigner  or  class of foreigners  entering  or  being entered  in  the area, such conditions as may  be  mentioned under Clause 9. Clause 9 of the Foreigners Order of 1948  in sub-clause (2) prohibits the acquisition of any land or  any interest   thereon  within  the  prohibited  area   by   any foreigner. 54.  Under Clause 9 the authorities concerned, by an  order, may prohibit any foreigner from remaining in any part of the protected  area as stated in the Foreigners’ Protected  Area Order  of  1958 which includes the  territory  of  Arunachal Pradesh. 55.  Examined in this light, the donation by Raja is clearly invalid. 56.  However, the memorandum dated April 26, 1976 issued  by the  Extra  Assistant  Commissioner  Miao  states  that  the agreement  between  the appellant, Khudiram Chakma  and  the local Raja dated November 20, 1972 has been approved by  the Deputy  Commissioner.   That  is  again  mentioned  in   the direction given by the Executive Magistrate Miao on May  30, 1977.   The  effect of approval by the  Deputy  Commissioner will be considered later. 57.  In this factual background, the question arises whether the appellants could claim citizenship under Section 6-A  of Citizenship  Act  of  1955.  We will now  extract  the  said section:               "6-A.    Special   provisions   as   to    the               citizenship  of persons covered by  the  Assam               Accord.- (1) For the purposes of this section:               (a)   ’Assam’  means the territories  included               in  the State of Assam immediately before  the               commencement  of the  Citizenship  (Amendment)               Act, 1985;               (b)   ’detected  to  be  a  foreigner’   means               detected to be a foreigner in accordance  with               the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31               of 1946) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,               1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the  said               order;               (c)   ’specified    territory’    means    the               territories included in Bangladesh immediately               before  the  commencement of  the  Citizenship               (Amendment) Act, 1985;               (d)   a person shall be deemed to be of Indian               origin, if he, or either of his parents or any               of  his  grandparents was  born  in  undivided               India;               (e)   a  person shall be deemed to  have  been                             detected to be a foreigner on the date on whic h               a  Tribunal constituted under  the  Foreigners               (Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its opinion to               the  effect  that  he is a  foreigner  to  the               officer or authority concerned.               (2)   Subject   to  the  provisions  of   sub-               sections  (6) and (7), all persons  of  Indian               origin who came before the 1st day of January,               1966  to  Assam from the  specified  territory               (including  such  of those  whose  names  were               included  in the electoral rolls used for  the               purposes of the General Election to the  House               of the People held in 1967) and who have  been               ordinarily  resident in Assam since the  dates               of  their entry into Assam shall be deemed  to               be  citizens of India as from the 1st  day  of               January, 1966.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

             628               (3)   to (8) ... (unnecessary)." 58.  As rightly urged by Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned  counsel for  the State of Assam, two conditions are required  to  be satisfied under sub-section (2).  They are:               (i)   Persons   who  are  of   Indian   origin               (undivided India) came before January 1,  1966               to Assam from the specified territory; and               (ii)  have been "ordinarily resident" in Assam               as  it  existed in 1985 since  their  date  of               entry in Assam. 59.  The appellants were no doubt persons of Indian  origin. They  came to Assam prior to January 1, 1966, namely,  March 31, 1964 from the then East Pakistan, (presently Bangladesh) which is undoubtedly one of the specified territories  under Section 6-A(1)(c). 60.  Assam,  as  seen  from  Section  6-A(1)(a),  means  the territories  included  in  the State  of  Assam  immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment)  Act, 1985. 61.  It  is the common case that Chakma people entered  into Assam  and  stayed  their  for  some  time  in  Ledo  within Dibrugarh  District.   Thereafter  they  shifted  to   Miao, Arunachal  Pradesh.  According to the appellant,  since  the territory  of Arunachal Pradesh in 1964 was included in  the State  of  Assam, they would be entitled to the  benefit  of Section  6-A.  This contention overlooks the fact  that  the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 (Act X of  1950) applied  to  the  territories  presently  forming  part   of Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.  However, by  the North-Eastern   Areas   (Reorganisation)  Act,   1971,   the territories  of  Arunachal Pradesh were  excluded  from  the purview  of  the Immigrants (Expulsion from  Assam)  Act  of 1950. 62.    Turning  to  Condition  No.  2  the  requirement   is ordinarily resident in Assam from the date of entry till the incorporation of Section 6-A, namely, December 7, 1985.   As to  the  meaning of "ordinarily resident" we  may  refer  to Shanno  Devi (Smt) v. Mangal Sain3.  We find  the  following observations at page 590 apposite:               "It  is  not necessary that for every  day  of               this  period he should have resided in  India.               In the absence of the definition of the  words               ’ordinarily  resident’ in the Constitution  it               is  reasonable  to  take  the  words  to  mean               ,resident  during  this  period  without   any               serious break’." 63.  Insofar as the appellants and the Chakmas were residing in  Miao SubDivision of Tirap District in Arunachal  Pradesh long  before  1985, they cannot be regarded as  citizens  of India.   We find it difficult to appreciate the argument  of Mr  Gobinda Mukhoty, learned counsel, that the  accident  of the  appellants  living  in  Arunachal  Pradesh  should  not deprive  them  of citizenship.  In this  connection,  it  is worthwhile  to note that Section 6-A of the Citizenship  Act came to be incorporated by Amending Act as a result of Assam Accord.   If law lays down certain conditions for  acquiring citizenship,  we cannot disregard the law.  As laid down  in Kennedy   v.  Mendoza-Martinez12  "Citizenship  is  a   most precious right". 64.  Aristotle, Politics, III, 5 states thus: 12 372 US 144, 159 : 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963) 629               "From earliest times, it has been such  status               alone that has enabled the individual to share

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

             fully  in  the benefits of  the  community  in               which he resides: Compare Homer’s words, ’like               some dishonoured stranger’: he who is excluded               from the honors of the State is no better than               an  alien." That is the position of  appellant               and the other 56 families. 65.  If  they are aliens, the donation deed  dated  November 20, 1972 is illegal.  The Raja did not obtain any permission for  sale from the Government.  From the records it is  also clear  that  the Raja had been donating the  lands  and  was indulging in anti-social activities for which he was warned. We  do  not know how the Deputy Commissioner  or  the  Extra Assistant Commissioner ever approve of this donation without there being an express authorisation by the State.  It is an admitted  fact that the place where the Chakma families  are residing  is  within the inner line notified  by  the  State Government.  Therefore, the argument    that    they    have cleared the forest and reclaimed the land and as such would be  entitled to a permanent abode, cannot be accepted. 66.  Now we come to the validity of the impugned order.   Mr K.K.  Venugopal, learned counsel has filed  various  notings and  the orders from the relevant files.  From the files  it is  clear  that there have been complaints  against  Chakmas that  they were procuring arms and ammunition and  indulging in  antisocial activities.  The Deputy  Commissioner,  Tirap District  on  March 19, 1981 wrote to  the  Extra  Assistant Commissioner, Miao as follows:               "Please refer to your report under  reference,               wherein it is indicated that a large number of               arms and ammunition seized from the possession               of  the Chakmas and are still kept in  Quarter               guard.  It is, therefore, requested to send us               a  detailed report indicating details of  arms               and ammunition seized.               2.    It  is  further seen  from  your  report               regarding  judicial cases, submitted  to  this               office,  that  there are altogether  76  cases               registered  up  to November 1979  against  the               Chakmas  and  most  of them  were  related  to               theft, assault and offences under Forest  Act.               It  is  also  therefore  requested  that  more               details  on  specific  offences  and   results               thereof may be furnished urgently.               3.    The above two informations are  urgently               required by the Government." 67.  A  list of cases including ones under Section  302  IPC and  other  offences under Section 25-A of the Arms  Act  is enclosed to the letter quoted above. 68.  The Chakmas also encroached upon the neighbouring  area by unfair means and created trouble to the local people.  An appeal  was made to the Chief Minister in 1980  itself  that because of these criminal activities they should be removed. It is not correct to state that the impugned notice came  to be issued like ’a bolt from the blue’.  The following letter of the appellant addressed to the Deputy Commissioner speaks eloquently:               "With reference to the subject quoted above, I               on  behalf of the villagers of Joypur  village               have the honour to draw your kind attention to               the  following  few lines for favour  of  your               needful action.               That,  being landless in Abhoypur  village,  a               few villagers consisting of fifty-six families               have  been  settled in Joypur village  in  the               year  1968  with  the  mutual  help  of   Shri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

             Ningrunong Rajkumar (Singpo) and the same  was               approved  by  the  then  Deputy  Commissioner,               Khonsa   in  accordance  with  the   agreement               adopted by Shri Rajkumar Singpo dated November               20, 1972.               630               Now,  the  most regretful matter  is  that  in               spite of our permanent cultivation on the area               for    long   sixteen   years   keeping    all               conformities  with the Government as  well  as               the  neighbouring local people, we  are  being               harassed by notice after notice to shift  from               the area.               On  the contrary, I am to state that the  land               where we have been directed to shift is  quite               short and extremely unfit for cultivation  due               to  which  those  vacant  lands  are  not  yet               occupied   by  anybody  in  spite   of   lying               considerable  landless  families in  the  said               villages.               All documents created in regard to this matter               are attached herewith for favour of your  kind               perusal and necessary action.               Under   the  circumstances  stated   here,   I               earnestly pray and request you afresh to  look               into   the  matter  and  thereby  revoke   the               shifting order at an early date.               I shall remain grateful to you thereof." 69.  From  the  endorsement,  it  is  also  seen  that   two representatives met the Deputy     Commissioner on  February 13, 1984.  Therefore, there was an oral hearing.  The  above letter  mentions  notice  after notice  to  shift.   It  was alleged  by a petition to the Chief Minister that the  Extra Assistant  Commissioner  had been paid handsomely  to  allow Chakma families to stay on illegally. 70.  On  November 16, 1982 the Extra Assistant  Commissioner called  upon the Circle Officer, Diyum to issue  notices  to the  Chakma families staying at Joypur village to return  to their original place of settlement within December 31, 1982. The  Survey Reports for resettlement of these Chakmas  dated April 27, 1983 inter alia states:               "Survey   had  been  done  in  Maitripur   and               Gautampur  areas  where they  have  found  110               acres  and  245 acres respectively  which  are               liable for settlement of Chakma settlers."               71.   Thus,  it will be clear that the  reason               for shifting these Chakma families are:               (i)   They  are in illegal occupation  of  the               protected area.               (ii)  They  are  indulging in  procurement  of               arms and ammunition.               (iii) They    are   indulging   in    criminal               activities  and  associating  with  antisocial               elements.               (iv)  They   have  been  source  of   constant                             trouble to the other tribals. 72.  As regards notice, it is seen from the above, that  the very  appellant had notice after notice proposing  to  evict which was resisted.  Therefore, as rightly urged by Mr  K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel, on ground realities, the plea of natural justice is fully satisfied. 73.  Ruling  in Scheduled Caste and Weaker  Section  Welfare Assn.  v.  State of Kamatakal affording a  hearing  to  slum dwellers  under  the Karnataka Slum Areas  (Improvement  and Clearance)  Act,  1973,  relied on by  Mr  Gobinda  Mukhoty,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

learned   counsel,   has  no  application   in   the   above circumstances. 74.  Even  then  what is that is sought to be  done  to  the appellants?   They  are  asked to settle  in  Maitripur  and Gautampur  villages  from  Miao.   Certainly,  settling  the Chakmas  in a particular place is a matter of policy.   This Court cannot enter into the wisdom of such a policy, in view of  what  has  been  stated  above,  Arunachal  Pradesh   is strategically  important with Bhutan in the West, Tibet  and China  in the North and North-East, Burma (Myanmar)  in  the East. 631 75.  It  is  true that fundamental right is available  to  a foreigner as held in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India2: (SCC p. 562, para 13)               "The  next  point  taken  on  behalf  of   the               petitioners,  that the foreigners  also  enjoy               some fundamental rights under the Constitution               of  this country, is also of not much help  to               them.  The fundamental right of the  foreigner               is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty               and  does not include the right to reside  and               settle  in  this I country,  as  mentioned  in               Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only  to               the citizens of this country." As  such  Articles  19(1)(d)  and  (e)  are  unavailable  to foreigners  because those rights are conferred only  on  the citizens.  Certainly, the machinery of Article 14 cannot  be invoked  to  obtain that fundamental  right.   Rights  under Articles 19(1)(d)   and   (e)  are  expressly  withheld   to foreigners. 76.  Now we come to the humanitarian grounds which  prompted the High Court of   Gauhati  to direct compensation  to  the appellants in the event of their being evicted. 77.  Blackburn  and  Taylor speaking on the right  to  enjoy asylum  in  Human Rights for the 1990s state at page  51  as under:               "The most urgent need of a fugitive is a place                             of  refuge.  His or her most fundamental  righ t               is  to  be  granted  asylum.   The   Universal               Declaration  of  Human Rights  addressed  this               issue in deceptive language.  To the  inexpert               reader there is great comfort in Article 14(1)               of  that  Declaration,  which  provides  that:               ’Everyone  has the right to seek and enjoy  in               other  countries asylum from persecution’,  it               seems tolerably clear, however, that the right               to  enjoy asylum means no more than the  right               to enjoy it if it is granted."               Again at page 52 it is stated thus:               "Article  14 of the Universal  Declaration  of               Human  Rights,  which speaks of the  right  to               enjoy  asylum,  has to be interpreted  in  the               light  of the instrument as a whole; and  must               be  taken to mean something.  It implies  that               although  an asylum-seeker has no right to  be               granted admission to a foreign State,  equally               a State which has granted him asylum must  not               later  return  him to the  country  whence  he               came.     Moreover,   the   Article    carries               considerable moral authority and embodies  the               legal  prerequisite of  regional  declarations               and instruments." 78.  Warwick  McKean,  dealing  with  the  equality  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

treatment  of aliens, states in Equality and  Discrimination under International Law at page 194 as under:               "It has long been recognized that persons  who               reside on the territory of countries of  which               they  are  not  nationals  possess  a  special               status  under international law.  States  have               traditionally reserved the right to expel them               from  their territory and to refuse  to  grant               them certain rights which are enjoyed by their               own  nationals, e.g. the right to  vote,  hold               public  office  or  to  engage  in   political               activities.   Aliens  may be  prohibited  from               joining   the   civil   service   or   certain               professions, or from owning some categories of               property,  and  States may  place  them  under               restrictions  in  the  interests  of  national               security or public order.  Nevertheless,  once               lawfully  admitted  to a territory,  they  are               entitled  to certain minimum rights  necessary               to the enjoyment of ordinary private life."               At pages 195-96 it is stated thus:               632               "General   international  law  provides   that               aliens should not be discriminated against  in               their  enjoyment of property rights once  they               have  been  acquired.  If  alien  property  is                             nationalized whereas the property of  national s               remains   unaffected   then   that   act    is               discriminatory     and    prohibited     under               international law.  As Fitzmaurice points out,               it  has long been recognized that  in  certain               matters,   e.g.  the  general   treatment   of               foreigners  in a country, or compensation  for               property   which   may  be   expropriated   or               nationalized,  non-discrimination  as  between               persons  of different nationality  or  against               foreigners  as compared with persons of  local               nationality,    amounts   to   a    rule    of               international  law, the breach of which  gives               rise  to  a  valid claim on the  part  of  the               foreign    government   whose   national    is               involved." 79.  Certainly,   if   the  acquisition  had   been   legal, compensation  could have been awarded.  But in view  of  the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 and clause 9(3)  of the  Foreigners Order, 1948 we do not think this is  a  case for award of compensation. 80.  Though  we  have held that the  principles  of  natural justice  have  been  fully complied with in  this  case,  we record  the statement made by learned counsel for the  State that  the  Chief Minister is ready to hear  the  respondents (appellants  herein) or any representative of  their  group. Accordingly we direct that an opportunity be afforded to the appellants by the Chief Minister and grant such relief as he deems  fit.   We  make  it clear that it  will  be  a  post- decisional hearing. 81.  Accordingly we dismiss civil appeal arising out of  SLP (C)  No. 13767 of 1992 filed by Khudiram Chakma while  civil appeal  arising  out of SLP (C) No. 12429 of 1992  filed  by State of Arunachal Pradesh is allowed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. 633