IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
State of Mizoram and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Evelyn Beingiazi and 2 Ors. – Respondent
WA/18/2022, WA/20/2022, I.A.(Civil)/148/2022
Decided on : 09-04-2024
Land Donation Certificate - Land Allotment Dispute - Mara Autonomous District Council (Non-Agricultural Land Settlement) Act, 2011, Section 17, Section 22 - The court discussed the issuance of Land Lease Certificates, the slicing out of land, and the cancellation of Land Settlement Certificates. It highlighted the provisions of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Non-Agricultural Land Settlement) Act, 2011 and their interpretation in the context of land allotment and public purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The Health & Family Welfare Department was allotted a plot of land under the Land Donation Certificate. The land was later sliced out and allotted to private individuals, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the slicing out of land and issuance of Land Lease Certificates to private individuals were done with mala fide intent. It held that the cancellation of the Land Settlement Certificates was justified and set aside the earlier judgment in favor of the private individuals.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the slicing out of land, the issuance of Land Lease Certificates, and the cancellation of Land Settlement Certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the slicing out of land and issuance of Land Lease Certificates were done with mala fide intent, and the cancellation of the Land Settlement Certificates was justified.
Final Decision: The court allowed and disposed of both writ appeals, setting aside the earlier judgment in favor of the private individuals.
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
The instant WA No. 18 of 2022 is an appeal against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 43 of 2019 dated 28.10.2021 and the W.A No.20 of 2022 is an appeal against the judgment order of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 18 of 2022 dated 02.06.2022. It was seen that both the Writ appeals pertains to the same subject matter, but in relation to different plot of land, for the above reason both the Writ Appeals were listed and heard together.
Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents in both the writ appeals along with Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the private respondents in both the writ appeals and Ms. Ramengmawii, learned counsel for MADC, in both the writ appeals.
[2.] The brief facts of the case is that the present Appellant i.e., Health & Family Welfare Department, was allotted a plot of land under the Land Donation Certificate by the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC)/ Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 dated 17.09.1997 with an area of 26.40 x 21.85 meters and Land Donation Certificate No. 54/L&R/2003-04/186 of 27.01.2005 with an area of 6.6 hectares. On 21.03.2014 the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 issued a Notification through the Senior Revenue Officer, vide No MADC 56/L&R/Admn/2013 under section 17 and section 22 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Non-Agricultural Land Settlement) Act, 2011, stating that since the system of allotting land by lease shall be introduced w.e.f 1st April, 2014, all Government Departments, Companies, Firms or Associations of persons in possession of Land by means of Land Donation Certificate were informed to apply for Land Lease Certificate and to surrender their respective Land Donation Certificates on or before 31.03.2014 and those who already surrendered their Land Donation Certificates shall be deemed to have already applied for Land Lease Certificates on the condition that the Executive Committee may acquire for public purpose any plot or any portion of land covered by the boundary of such Land Donation Certificate which is not used for the purpose for which it was allotted. Therefore, in pursuance to the said notification the Appellant herein submitted its Land Donation Certificate to the Land Revenue Settlement Department, MADC. Thereafter another notification dated 16.07.2014 was issued by the Senior Revenue officer, Land Revenue Settlement Department, MADC, notifying that all Land Donation Certificates issued by the MADC was revoked w.e.f 01.04.2014 and that the original area of land may not be given while allotting land on lease but as deemed appropriate by Executive Committee, MADC. All heads of the department were requested to cooperate with the officials of the Land Revenue & Settlement department. In terms with the said notifications the Appellant/ Health department were issued Certificate of Land Lease, bearing No. LL.02(G Deptt) 43 of 08.02.2014 whose landed area in sqm. was 10139 , which was smaller than the area allotted to them under the Land Donation Certificate. The instant respondent No. 1 was then issued a plot of land in the sliced out portion of land vide land pass dated 08.12.2016, which was converted into a permanent pass under LSC No.PLSC/R/NS/47/018 dated 26.04.2018 in terms of section 16 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Non-Agriculture Land Settlement) Act, 2011 (Act of 2011). When the Appellant Department came to know that certain portion of its land had been sliced out while converting the Land Donation Certificate into Land Lease Certificate, the Appellant Department submitted their objections and representations to the MADC vide letters dated 20th March, 2017, dated 18.05.2018 and letter dated 05. 06. 2018, requesting the Chief Executive Member, MADC to take necessary action for restoration of its land into its original form. Thereafter, the MADC in pursuance to the resolution of the 47th Executive Committee held on 26.06.2018, issued a Show Cause
The appellant/petitioner authority must establish locus standi by demonstrating that the subject land was part of the land transferred to them by the State to challenge the allotment and mutation.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
Action of the respondents has not been on account of any mala fides but under the belief that they are protecting the property of the State.
Restoration of lawful land ownership rights requires adherence to proper transfer processes as per land revenue acts; cancellation without due procedure is invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
The court affirmed that the assignment of land to ex-servicemen and their legal heirs is protected under government orders, allowing for ownership claims despite administrative disputes.
quasi-judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated to the party concerned.
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.