JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate as well as Mr. Ali Hussain, counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner of land covered by Garden Pass No. 858 of 2004 issued by the Village Council. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's land was badly damaged due to construction of new Railway Line from Bairabi to Sairang and compensation was neither assessed nor paid to him.

3. The petitioner's counsel prays that a direction should be issued to the respondents to assess and pay compensation for damage to the crops and to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner, which was damaged by the respondents, in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, Government Advocate submits that the question of validity of the petitioner's land pass would also have to be gone into. He also submits that the present matter should be dismissed as there are factual disputes. Learned counsel for the State respondents also submits that no specific particulars have been made by petitioner to show the actual damage or the amount of damage caused to the petitioner's land, by the alleged construction of the Railway Line. He also submits that no relief under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be given as the said Act has been repealed.

5. Mr. Ali Hussain, counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner has no right to make any claim in view of the fact that a Village Council does not have the competence to issue a Garden Pass. He also submits that besides the above points, the petitioner has not made the Contractor, who constructed the Railway Line, a party to the proceedings. The counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the Railway Line is being constructed by the Contractors appointed by the Railway Authority and accordingly, the writ petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The question of validity of the petitioner's land, which is covered by Garden Pass No. 858 of 2004 would have to be considered in light of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953. Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House site) Act, 1953 is as follows:

"3. Allotment of sites:-

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, a Village Council shall be competent to allot sites within its jurisdiction for residential and other non-agricultural purposes with the exception of shops and stalls which include hotels and other business houses of the same nature.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Administrator shall have the power to intervene in all cases of disputes over any sites within the village, and the decision of the Administrator shall be final.

Provided that the Administrator may, at any time by notification, declare that any village or a particular locality is a protected area where allotment of sites shall be done by Village Council only with the previous approval of the Administrator.

2) The Administrator or any person or body authorized in that behalf by the Administrator shall allot sites for residential and other non-agricultural purposes in Aizawl, Lunglei, Demagiri, Sairang, Kolasib, Champhai and N. Vanlaiphai and also sites for shops and stalls which may include hotels and other business houses of the like nature in places other than the said stations.

3) The Village Council, when site is allotted under sub-section (1) and the Administrator or any other person or body, authorized in that behalf by the Administrator when the site is allotted under sub-section (2) shall issue a patta and may incorporate therein in writing such conditions as may be reasonable in the interest of general public or a Scheduled Tribe.

4) The authority issuing the patta on being satisfied on proof that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document