IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
State of Mizoram, Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Darkunga and ors. – Respondents
WA/5/2021, WA/12/2022, WA/10/2021, I.A.(Civil)/119/2022, WA/7/2021, I.A.(Civil)/120/2022, WA/11/2021, WA/6/2021, WA/8/2021, I.A.(Civil)/176/2024, WA/13/2021, WA/12/2021, WA/11/2022, WA/9/2021
Decided On : 29-11-2024
(A) Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 - Sections 14 and 21 - Notification dated 28.01.1965 - The learned Single Judge set aside the notification on grounds of improper procedure in its issuance, failing to consider the historical context and the ecological implications of the decision. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in the notification process and the need for the State to fulfill its obligations under the Act. (Paras 1-70)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 11, and 31 - The court held that the awards made under the Act have attained finality and the State is obligated to pay compensation as per the awards, irrespective of the land's classification as forest land. The court directed the State to pay the awarded amounts within a specified timeframe. (Paras 71-135)
JUDGMENT :
D. Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. B. Deb, the learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Lalnunhlui, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Mizoram. We have also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 8, 11 and 13 of 2021 as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of 2021 as well as Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga for the Respondents Writ Appeal Nos. 11/2022 and 12/2022. We have also heard Mr. V. K. Jindal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Subedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NEEPCO.
2. This instant batch of Writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 passed in 11 (eleven) writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge had-
(b) Set aside the notification dated 28.01.1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955;
(c) The Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions were given the liberty to seek alternative remedy for execution of the Awards in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’); and
(d) The State of Mizoram was given the liberty to pay compensation amounts to the writ petitioners.
3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to mention that by this impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge decided three different grievances raised in the writ petitions. Out of the eleven writ petitions, nine of them were grievances of non-payment of the entitlement as per Awards passed by the Collector in terms with the Act of 1894. Two writ petitions which were filed subsequently in the year 2017, raised two grievances. The first grievance was non-satisfaction of the Awards and thereby seeking directions. Secondly, the Petitioners in these two writ petitions were aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2016 and the Notification dated 28.01.1965 and accordingly challenged the order dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram as well as the notification dated 28.01.1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) whereby half mile on either side of 16 rivers were made Council Reserve Forests.
4. To decide the legality of the impugned judgment and order, we find it appropriate first to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the various writ petitions and the passing of the impugned judgment and order.
5. The Government of Mizoram had taken a policy decision to set up 60 MW Hydro Electric Project over the River Tuirial in the year 1996. The project was to be set up with the help of the North East Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO), a Government of India Undertaking having its registered Office at Shillong. In that regard, an agreement was entered into by and between the Government of Mizoram and NEEPCO for execution of the Tuirial (60 MW) Hydro Electric Project on 29.05.1996. The said Agreement contained various clauses. Amongst the said clauses, Clause-8 of the said agreement stipulated that the total land required for the construction and completion of the project shall be acquired by the State Government and handed over to NEEPCO on payment of the necessary fee to the State Government as assessed by the State Government.
6. It is pertinent herein to mention that a communication was issued on 10.08.1990 much prior to entering into the Agreement dated 29.05.1996. In the said letter, the Conservator of the Forests, Government of Mizoram reported that the land which would be required for the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project and more particularly, the whole submergent area would fall inside the Riverine Reserved Forest of Tuirial. I
B.K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (1987) 1 SCC 658
Nature Lovers Movement Vs. the State of Kerala and Others (2009) 5 SCC 373
Naresh Kumar and Others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 9 SCC 416
Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2003) 3 SCC 128
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129
Santosh Kumar and Others Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and Another (1986) 2 SCC 343
Roma Sonkar Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission and Another (2018) 17 SCC 106
Baddula Lakshmaiah and Others Vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and Others (1996) 3 SCC 52
The court affirmed that awards under the Land Acquisition Act, once finalized, are binding, and the State must pay compensation despite challenges regarding land classification.
Section 31(2) of the Act requires the Collector to deposit the awarded amount in Court in case it is not received by the persons interested or there is some dispute. Under the said Act, the deposit i....
The court affirmed the obligation of the state to pay compensation for land acquisition as mandated by law, emphasizing the validity of the award and the constitutional right to property.
The court affirmed the obligation to pay compensation for land acquisition, emphasizing the learned Single Judge's jurisdiction to direct payment when no challenge to the award existed.
Section 11 A of 1894 Act read as period within which an award shall be made.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
The Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is inapplicable due to lack of Presidential assent, and compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act,....
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and not under the State Rehabilitation Policy, as the land was not classified as forest land.
Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06.
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where prior proceedings unde....
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.