IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Repasosang (AO), S/o. Lt. Sakulemba AO – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Through The Secy, Land Revenue Dept. and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.236 Of 2017
Decided On : 29-11-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION - RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Article 371A - The court discussed the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in Nagaland, emphasizing that the Act requires adoption by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly as per Article 371A of the Constitution. The court interpreted Article 371A as providing special provisions for Nagaland, which exempt certain central laws regarding land ownership and transfer unless adopted by the state assembly. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to uphold the dismissal of the petitioner's claims for solatium and interest, as the RFCTLARR Act was not applicable in the state.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order dismissing his application for solatium and interest on land compensation, arguing that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 should apply in Nagaland despite the state assembly not adopting it. The land was acquired for a CRPF Transit Camp, and the petitioner had received compensation but later sought additional statutory entitlements under the RFCTLARR Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was not applicable in Nagaland as the state assembly had not adopted it, in accordance with Article 371A of the Constitution. The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision, stating that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the compensation and agreed not to make further claims.
Issues: 1. Is the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 applicable in Nagaland without adoption by the state assembly? 2. If applicable, is the petitioner entitled to solatium and interest despite having accepted compensation under an agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not automatically apply to Nagaland due to the special provisions of Article 371A, which require legislative adoption for laws concerning land ownership and transfer. The petitioner’s acceptance of compensation and agreement to not reclaim further claims were also significant in the court's reasoning.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Deputy Commissioner's order and stating that the petitioner was not entitled to solatium and interest under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
JUDGMENT :
(Kardak Ete, J.) :
Heard Mr. Tali Ao, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional AG for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Z. N. Ngullie, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by which the petitioner’s application claiming solatium and interest in land compensation dated 14.07.2016 has been dismissed by holding that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( in short RFCTLARR Act, 2013) is not applicable in the State of Nagaland as the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland has not taken any decision with regard to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in terms of Article 371A (iv) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant solatium and interest to the compensation amount under Section 30(1) (3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
3. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that in the year 2009-10, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur initiated acquisition of land of 43 persons measuring 14.21 Acres including petitioner’s land situated under Ward-12 of Dimapur Municipal Council for the use of CRPF Transit Camp at Dimapur Town which is in CRPF occupation since 1987. Part of the land measuring 25 bighas was the patta land of the petitioner’s father which he has inherited the ownership which was initially used for jhum cultivation and during the course of time converted to permanent farming and domestic animals breeding farm. Due to assignment of wrong Dag number some private individuals claimed right over the land for which the petitioner instituted a suit which has been decreed in favour of him in 1992. Though initially it was of 25 bighas, the final corrected land patta in terms of the decree issued to the petitioner in the year 2010 was for an area of 16 bighas only.
4. The land acquisition proposal and estimate submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for land measuring 14.21 Acres @Rs. 350.00 per Square feet which comes to a total of Rs. 21,27,20,000 (Rupees Twenty One Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs and Twenty Thousand) Only was approved by the State Land Acquisition Authority (SLAA) only on 13.06.2016. The petitioner submitted an application dated 14.07.2016 before the DC, Dimapur, requesting to pass award under the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The relief pressed before the DC was limited only to solatium and interest since market value assessed compensation amount have been already deposited with the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by the CRPF. However, the Deputy Commissioner declined to entertain the petitioner’s application and dismissed the same by impugned order dated 27.02,2017 on the ground that under Article 371A of the Constitution of India, application of Central Law in matters of ownership and transfer of land and its resources has been exempted and the State Government has not adopted the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as on date.
5. After the dismissal of the application of the petitioner claiming solatium and interest on the assessed land compensation of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner had issued a notice vide letter dated 28.02.2017 whereby 43 land owners were directed to appear in person and collect their respective compensation amount on 06.03.2017 along with the respective land patta in original and other necessary documents. On such notice, the petitioner along with others have entered into an agreement with the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by way of sale deed for land acquisition for the establishment of CRPF Transit Camp at Dimapur Town. Accordingly, the petitioner received the land compensation amounting to Rs. 8,06,40,000/-(Rupees eight crore six lakh and forty thousand) only on 06.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.03.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner,
Kejanglwa Village Vs. The State of Nagaland and 3 others, C. REVN. 2/2019
Prem Singh and other Versus Birbal and others
State of Haryana Versus Ram Singh
Narain Das Jain (deceased) by LRS vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra
State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh and Anr reported in (2011) 4 SCC 734
AI
The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable in Nagaland unless adopted by the state legislative assembly, as per Article 371A of the Constitution, which provides special provisions regarding land owners....
The state cannot acquire private land without adhering to formal statutory procedures. Informal administrative arrangements cannot substitute for legally required acquisition processes, and owners ar....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
Enforcement of clauses in conditional sale deeds and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act in states where it is not adopted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement for appointment on landownership basis must comply with government policies on land acquisition and appointment to Grade-IV posts....
The State must follow statutory procedures for land acquisition; failure to do so renders the acquisition illegal and void ab initio.
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.