IMPORTANT POINT
Legal ownership documents are essential for claiming compensation in land acquisition cases; without them, claims for further compensation are not valid.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. J. Mangsuanhua, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of all the appellants in these 3(three) writ appeals. Also heard Mr. A. Barua, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram; and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, representing their respective respondents.

2. The above-noted writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants, herein, presenting a challenge to the common Judgment & Order, dated 20.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)140/2019, WP(c)91/2014, and WP(c)49/2015.

3. WRIT APPEAL NO. 151/2023:

The appellants, herein, had initially approached the writ Court by way of filing a writ petition being WP(c)98/2014 which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 01.07.2015. A writ appeal being WA No. 01/2016 assailing the said order, dated 01.07.2015, was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 30.07.2018, requiring the appellants to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with their claim for compensation. The said order, dated 30.07.2018, was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the appellants by way of filing a Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 28196 & 28197 of 2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 02.11.2018, disposed of the said applications by granting liberty to the appellants, herein, to approach and pursue their representations before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.

The appellants, thereafter, submitted representation before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 17.12.2018, which, however, came to be rejected by the said authority vide order, dated 23.09.2019. Aggrieved; the appellants, herein, had instituted WP(c)140/2019, challenging the order of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, dated 23.09.2019, and further praying for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013, for grant of adequate compensation in respect of the lands under their possession.

4. WRIT APPEAL NO. 152/2023:

The appellants, herein, who were possessing lands by virtue of land settlement certificates and mining passes issued to them by the authorities, being aggrieved by the acquisition of their respective plots of land made in the year 2010 and inadequate compensation granted to them, had instituted the aforesaid WP(c)91/2014, inter alia, praying for quashing of the earlier process of acquisition of their respective plots of land in the year 2010 and for re-assessment of the compensation receivable by them under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.

5. WRIT APPEAL NO. 154/2023:

The appellant, herein, by contending that issuance of land settlement certificate in respect of the land under his possession, was under process, had prayed for an interference with the earlier acquisition of his land made during the year 2010 and for re-assessment of the compensation due to him under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.

6. The above-noted facts would go to reveal that the appellants in WA No. 151/2023 and the appellant in WA No. 154/2023, at the time of acquisition of their respective plots of land in the year 2010, did not possess any land settlement certificates and/or any pass in one form or the other for the plots of land under their possession. The appellants in WA No. 152/2023, however, possessed the land settlement certificates and/or mining passes in respect of the plots of land under their respective possession.

7. The respondent authorities on the acquisition of the lands under the possession of the appellants, herein, had sanctioned the compensation amount so computed in respect of each of the appellants involved in the above-noted writ appeals and the same were disbursed t