JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1-4 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5-7.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a direction for the respondents to pay the petitioners fair compensation including land value, solatium and interest as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for a direction for quashing the notification dated 11.03.1982 declaring ‘Thorang Tlang’ as a Reserved Forest for acquisition of the farmlands of the petitioners for the purpose of Thorang Tlang Wildlife Sanctuary and for release of the petitioners lands after paying due compensation as per law.

3. Mr. Vanlalnghaka learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are from Dampui South Village and they have been residing in the area, what is now known as Thorang Tlang Sanctuary. The petitions were farmers and have been planting crops within the said village since the year 1992 having properties covered by periodic pattas and village council passes. This area was also notified as “Thorang Elephant Santuary” in 1995 but no information was given to them. The State had declared Thorang as Reserved Forest vide its notification dated 11.03.1982. Then around 2011, the respondents informed them that the said village is a wildlife sanctuary and that they have to be relocated. The petitioners were pressurize with a scheme wherein they would be relocated to a new location and that they would be aid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs per family. The respondents resort to stoppage of all infrastructural and health facilities to the village as by means of coercion, forced the petitioners to leave the Dampui South under the scheme of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs each for relocation of their homes, however, since they was no proper relocation scheme, the said 10 lakhs was not sufficient and have hence have approached this court that their lands may be acquired as per the 2013 Act since the petitioners are having Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas.

4. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1982 notification was not issued as per the prescribed procedure and the petitioners had no knowledge of the declaration of the village as Reserved Forest area. The said notification existed prior to the existence of the village and while they were allowed to reside in the village for 20 years, there was no mentioned of the notification during all those years. The petitioners were then issued eviction notice and were given rehabilitation packages of Rs.10 for lakhs which is insufficient for any rehabilitation.

5. The learned counsel submits that the notification dated 11.03.1982 was not done by following the prescribed procedure and the thus this notification should be held void ab-initio. The Learned counsel has relied on the following citations wherein it was held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others Vs. Manju Jain and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157 para 22-24, In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the petitioners cannot take the plea that they were not aware the said duly notified notification of 1982 since ignorance of law is not an excuse. The State Government is not expected to give a copy of the notification to each house hold. The petitioners had agreed to move out of the area by receiving the sum of Rs.10 lakhs for relocation, this relocation scheme was done under the National Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 2007. The guideline which was laid down by the Central Government has been adopted in th