Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Lalramtiama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents.

2. The writ petitioner, which is an NGO, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation praying that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act to the Schedule Tribes of the State of Mizoram whose lands are covered by Village Council Passes and whose lands have been taken away by the Government. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to formalize and make a rehabilitation scheme for the homeless Schedule Tribes. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the discrimination made under the Land Revenue Act between Pass holder and Land Settlement Certificate holder should be struck down, as it is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner also prays that the State should assess the value of the lands of the Village Council passes which are given under the Hills District Act, 1955 or under The Mizoram (Land Revenue Act), 1956 when those lands are acquired, as no compensation is given on the value of the land on acquisition.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that thousands of Schedule Tribes of Mizoram living in small huts do agricultural work on the land given to them on the basis of Village Council Passes. The petitioner's counsel submits that the lands covered by Passes, are being taken away by the State Government without any rehabilitation scheme and without any compensation being paid to the Pass holders as per the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, 1894 in short). The petitioner's counsel submits that while Land Settlement Certificate holders are given compensation for acquisition of their lands, the Pass holders are not given any compensation for their lands on the same being acquired.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per Section 2 (11) of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956:

"Pass-holders means a person who has the temporary right of use and occupancy over a specified plot of land for a specified period under such terms as the Administrator may prescribe in the pass he holds".

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per Section 7 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956 (herein after refer to as the 1956 Act) the settlement holders have heritable and transferable right over the land. The petitioner's counsel submits that this discrimination in depriving Village Council Pass holders of payment of compensation at the time of taking away of their lands by the Government is arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair. He submits that Pass holders cannot be denied their lawful rights at the time of payment of compensation as they cannot fend for themselves if their lands are taken away. The petitioner's counsel submits that on taking away of lands covered by Passes, the respondents ought to have framed a scheme for the thousands of Schedule Tribes residing in the State of Mizoram. The petitioner's counsel submits that due to the compulsory acquisition of land for fencing of the Indo Bangladesh Border and for the purpose of construction of road, Pass holders have lost their livelihood and in the process, the State Government has also denied them their right under the Constitution and the L.A. Act, 1894, by not paying them any compensation for the loss of their lands.

6. The respondents counsels on the other hand submit that what has been challenged in the present writ petition is the Lushai Hills District (House site) Act, 1953 (hereinafter I refer to as the 1953 Act) and the 1956 Act. However, the New Act, i.e. the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, has repealed the above two Acts and there being no challenge to the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, the present writ petition should be dismissed.

7. The respondents counsels also submit that payment of compensation for acquisition of land had been made as per the p