NELSON SAILO
Vanlalnghaka – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
Heard Mr. A.R. Malhora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Union of India. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their land for construction of approach road from Chhimtuipui Bridge (Tuipui ‘D’) within Hnahthial District for maintenance of National Security along with Border Indo-Myanmar International Border road measuring about 520 meters approximately in length under Draft Award No. 1/2022 by applying the provisions of the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (Act of 2016).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that their land should be acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) instead since the Act of 2016 has been held to be inapplicable by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide common Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 20 & 30/2014.
3. It is the case of the State respondents on the other hand that the common Judgment & Order dated 15.11
The court ruled that the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 is inapplicable for land acquisition, directing adherence to the Act of 2013 for compensation assessment.
The court directed compensation assessment under the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisitions And Resettlement Act, 2013 for land acquisition, overriding previous provisions.
The Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 is not applicable; the Act of 2013 governs land acquisition in Mizoram.
The Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 is inapplicable; compensation must be assessed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehab....
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 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.
Proper compensation assessment procedures under Section 64 of the 2013 Act must be followed, allowing the authority to consider referral and potential delays for justifiable reasons.
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.
The Competent Authority under the National Highways Act cannot revise its compensation order, and disputes must be resolved through arbitration.
Absence of agreement for TDR/FSI necessitates monetary compensation under the 2013 Act, as lawful acquisition processes were not followed.
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.