The compensation awarded by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be questioned except on specific grounds, and the payment of interest is mandatory under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Union of India and Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 i.e., the General Manager, National Building Corporation Company (NBCC).

2. 257 petitioners are before this Court with the following prayer:-

“In the premises, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Respondents shall not be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioners as awarded to them by the Respondent No. 3 vide Draft Supplementary Award No. 1 of 2009 along with interest and solatium in accordance with Section 23 (1A) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further interest for delayed payment of the Draft Supplementary Award No. 1 of 2009 and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the rule absolute and allow this Petition and/or to pass any other Order (s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

3. The petitioners have claimed payment of compensation for damages caused to their land due to the construction of Indo-Bangladesh Border Fencing (IBB Fencing), which has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 14,99,16,469/-by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Mamit District, Mamit (respondent No. 2) vide Draft Supplementary Award No. 1/2009 dated 07.10.2009. The District Collector concerned had also prepared Draft Award No. 1/2009 dated 26.10.2009, which was for online damage. The earlier Draft Supplementary Award was for damage beyond alignment. Both the awards were approved by the competent authority in the State Government but only Draft Award No. 1/2009 dated 26.10.2009 was satisfied, which has therefore resulted in filing of the present writ petition.

4. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Draft Supplementary Award No. 1/2009 dated 07.10.2009 prepared by the District Collector for damage beyond alignment due to the construction of IBB Fencing was approved by the State Government and the same was conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District, Mamit by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement vide communication under Memo No. K.12011/4/06-REV/Pt dated 17.06.2015. Thereafter, the same was conveyed to the respondent No. 4 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue Department vide letter dated 14.07.2015 for according the sanction and therefore, the respondent authorities concerned should be directed to accord sanction and pay the compensation amount as assessed by the District Collector along with all other statutory benefits including interest as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act). The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent authorities concerned are aware about the land acquisition made as they had participated in the acquisition process and that the award as approved by the State Government was also furnished to them. He submits that at any rate, the writ petition claiming compensation in terms of the Draft Supplementary Award No. 1/2009 dated 07.10.2009 was filed on 09.11.2016 and therefore, the respondent authorities concerned cannot deny payment of compensation as per the Award made by the District Collector. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the L.A Act cannot be questioned in a proceeding either by the Government or by the Company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made except on the ground of fraud, corruption or collusion. He therefore submits that in the absence of any such ground, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the compensation that is due to them as per the Award alon