IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Nh-29 Landowners Union And 229 Ors – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And 8 Ors - Respondents
WP(C) 185 of 2019
Decided on : 29-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226, 300, 371 (A) – Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 – Section 6 – Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978 – Section, 15, (1), (4) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11 A – National Highway Act, 1967 – Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 – National Highway Act, 1956 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Suits and proceedings – Provides special status to state of Nagaland under special provisions – Petitioners have joined together and have filed instant writ petition challenging actions of respondent authorities, i.e. State of Nagaland for illegally dispossessing them from their patta land and thereupon have also not paid any compensation in that regard – It was also mentioned that failing which, claim for compensation would not be entertained – Accordingly, all land-owners including petitioners or their predecessor in interest, submitted details of their establishments – Held, This Court duly agrees with said submissions that this Court would not be in a position to decide as to whether petitioners have any right over lands or for that matter whether there has been transgression to their rights on account of reserving/widening of road to meters – Learned Additional AG has also drawn attention of this Court to fact that entire stretch of land in from section falls within domain of Deputy Commissioner, as Deputy Commissioner – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong for the petitioners, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG, Government of Nagaland appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Also heard Mr. Z. Kulnu, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 5 and 9 although notice has been duly served.
2. 230 petitioners have joined together and have filed the instant writ petition challenging the actions of the respondent authorities, i.e. the State of Nagaland for illegally dispossessing them from their patta land and thereupon have also not paid any compensation in that regard. The brief facts of the instant case is that by an order No. REV-13/93-D dated 17.02.1995, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland it was directed to all villagers/residents from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima to submit the details of their establishment i.e. construction costs for their buildings/houses and other developments in their respective lands to the said Office within a period of one month for acquisition/compensation for the purpose of four-laning. It was also mentioned that failing which, claim for compensation would not be entertained. Accordingly, all the land-owners including the petitioners or their predecessor in interest, submitted the details of their establishments.
3. While the aforesaid process was going on, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland had issued Notification No. REV-12/93-D dated 17.04.2000, wherein it was mentioned that in pursuance to the Government letter No. NH/NH-39(A)/98 dated 09.02.2000, notice was given under the provisions of Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 upon those persons whose buildings and constructions fell within 27 meters of the road, i.e. 13.5 meters on either side from the center of the road, i.e. NH-39, 110-123 kms from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima. It was further directed as per the said Notification to all concerned individuals to show-cause on or before 02.05.2000 as to why an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Public Land Act of 1971 should not be passed against them for evicting them from the said land. This particular Notification was also published in a daily newspaper, Nagaland Post on 18.05.2000.
4. Thereupon, various land-owners including the petitioners had submitted a reply on 18.05.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur stating inter alia that they were being issued land pattas by the State Government and being land-owners have been developing their premises from time to time. It was further mentioned that as they were patta-holders the question of them occupying the land as unauthorized do not arise. Further to that it was stated that if the District Administration required land of the land-owners along the NH39 for public interest; the same can be taken by the District Administration after paying due compensation for both the land and constructions developed therein and the land-owners should not suffer due to contradictions within the Government i.e. issuing pattas on one hand and Urban Planning on the other. As the apprehension of the land-owners including the petitioners continued in spite of submitting their show-cause reply they constituted a Union that is known as the Ad-hoc Land-Owner Committee along NH-39 (Purana Bazar to Chumukedima) and filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)/98(K)/2000.
5. The case of the petitioners therein in the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C)/98(K)/2000 was to quash and set aside the eviction orders and to give a direction to the respondents to pay compensation. This Court, by an order dated 06.06.2000 issued Rule and as an interim directed that until further orders the orders of eviction dated 22nd, 23rd and 24th May, 2000 be stayed. Thereupon, the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C)/98(K)/2000 was disposed of vide a Judgment &
State of Haryana Versus Mukesh Kumar reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404
Vidya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569
The procedure under Sections 3G and 3E of the National Highways Act was duly followed in passing the awards.
Forceful dispossession and use of private land for public purpose without following due process of law violates the constitutional right under Article 300A, and delay cannot negate the claim for comp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to pay compensation and follow due process of law when acquiring property, as well as the need for rehabilitation of affected person....
The court affirmed that possession of land for public use requires legal authority and compensation, emphasizing that delay cannot bar just claims for compensation.
The State must follow legal procedures for land acquisition and cannot evade compensation obligations based on delay or laches.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.