JUDGMENT :

AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpui, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an order for payment of rental compensation to them for occupation of their lands by the Security Forces for the period from 1994 till the period of acquisition of their lands.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are the owners of lands located at Thuampui Helipad Area, Aizawl covered by various Land Settlement Certificates (L.S.C.). Since 1994 their lands have been occupied by the Security Forces. However, the acquisition proceedings of the lands of the petitioners were initiated only on 11.06.2018 by publishing notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (For short ‘the Act’) by the respondent No. 7, the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of occupation of their lands by the Security Forces under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India since 1994, they have not been paid any rent by the respondents.

4. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has reiterated the above contentions made in the writ petition and has drawn attention to Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. DDA and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 79. Learned counsel further submits that 50 percent of the Award amount has already been paid by the government.

5. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, submits, with reference to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition that while being occupied by the Security Forces the petitioners acquired LSCs in 1994 etc. for the same and after the survey was done for the purpose of initiation of the acquisition process, it was revealed that the petitioners’ lands were located within the area occupied by the Security Forces. Ms. Khiangte further submits that it was only after the survey was done, the petitioners claimed rental on their lands and as such, they are now estopped from claiming any rent after lapse of about 26 years and accordingly, the petition is barred by law of limitation.

6. Ms. Zairemsangpui, learned CGC, appearing for the Union of India/MOD, submits that demand of rental compensation of the land at helipad area at Thuampui was initially received from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, where the number of claimants were 65 for the period w.e.f. 01.09.1986 to 31.12.1997 and the names of the present petitioners were not shown therein indicating thereby that the lands of the petitioners were not under the occupation of the Security Forces. Ms. Zairemsangpui further submits that the rental compensation of the lands at the aforesaid helipad area was again received from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, where the number of claimants was 45 from the period 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2005. The names of the present petitioners were not shown in the said list indicating thereby that the lands of the petitioners were not under occupation of the Security Forces. It is also submitted by Ms. Zairemsangpuii that the demand for rental compensation of land at the aforesaid helipad area was received for the third time from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, in which the number of claimants was 45 for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2007. The names of the present petitioners were not shown in the said list of claimants indicating thereby that the lands of the petitioners were not under occupation o