SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Nelson Sailo, J.
S. Rualkhuma, S/o S. Sokha (L) – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India r/b The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhavan 101A, South Block, New Delhi – Respondent
WP(C)/125/2021, WP(C)/137/2022, WP(C)/22/2023, WP(C)/13/2023, WP(C)/14/2023, WP(C)/7/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/126/2021
Decided On : 21-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, Mr. A.R. Malhotra
For the Respondent: Ms. Zairemsangpuii (CGC)

IMPORTANT POINT
The Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 is not applicable; the Act of 2013 governs land acquisition in Mizoram.

Headnote:

(A) Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 - Section 11(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 47 - The Government issued a preliminary notification for land acquisition for ZMC Road under the Ministry of Defence. A coordinate Bench ruled that the Act of 2016 is not applicable in Mizoram, and the provisions of the Act of 2013 should apply instead. The petitioners claimed entitlement to compensation under the Act of 2013, which is more beneficial. The court directed the District Collector to reassess compensation under the Act of 2013 and refund any illegally deducted cess. (Paras 2-9)

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Parties are represented by their respective counsels. These matters have been clubbed together since the issues involved are similar and identical.

Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

2. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the writ petitions is that the Government of Mizoram in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department through the Secretary of the said Department issued a preliminary notification under Section 11 (1) of the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (Act of 2016) for acquisition of land for construction of Zyhno-Mawhre-Chapi (ZMC Road) under the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India for maintenance of National Security along the INDO-MYANMAR international border. As per the Schedule, the approximate area/dimension of land to be acquired was shown as 39.6 hectares/22.00 kms long. Thereafter, a final notification was issued by the same authority under Section 40 (2) of the Act of 2016 on 20.01.2021.

3. Be it stated herein that a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 20/2014 and WP(C) No. 30/2014 vide a common Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 held that the Act of 2016 shall not be applicable in the State of Mizoram and instead, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) shall be applicable. Aggrieved with the judgment, the State preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 70 & 71/2018. Therefore, in view of the challenge made in the Writ Appeal, Clause 8 of the preliminary notification dated 16.10.2019 provided that the said notification will not stand in the way of the petitioners or cause any prejudice to them to make further claim under the Act of 2013 depending upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No. 70/2018 filed by the State Government in the Principal Seat of this Court. With the said caveat, the acquisition proceedings proceeded and culminated with the preparation of Draft Award No. 6/2021 and Draft Award No. 7/2021. The said Draft Awards admittedly were approved by the competent authority and thereafter, the compensation amount that was assessed has been paid to the land owners.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Act of 2013 being more beneficial, they are entitled to receive compensation as per the assessment made under the Act of 2013. For instance, the solatium that can be granted under the Act of 2016 varies from 10% to 100% of the compensation amount. Whereas, under the Act of 2013, the same is 100% of the compensation amount. The further grievance projected by the petitioners is that 10% of the compensation amount has been deducted as cess by the District Council authorities without any basis and therefore, the deducted amount should be refunded to them. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are not satisfied with the fixation of market value on their respective land and that they should get more than what has been fixed and assessed by the Collector concerned. However, since the State Government has failed to establish Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 2016, the petitioners cannot submit a reference application under Section 60 of the same Act. It is their case that the aforementioned Sections are paramateria to Section 51 and Section 64 respectively of the Act of 2013. Therefore, the State respondents should be directed to establish the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority in terms of 2013 Act.

5. With the above facts and claims made by the petitioners, the matter was kept pending for some time in view of the pendency of the two (2) Writ Appeals namely, Writ Appeal No. 71/2018 and Writ Appeal No. 70/2018. The said two (2) Writ Appeals have since been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2024. A copy of the Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2024 has been placed before this Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top