Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways – Appellant
Versus
Vanlallura, S/o. Vanlalhlua – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7; and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.11.2022, passed by the District Collector, Kolasib, in connection with the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (Annexure-F) and also the consequential letter of assessment of District Collector, Kolasib, dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure-G).
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:
“The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the land owners of the land acquired for construction of new Railway Line by N.F. Railways from Bairabi to Sairang. Thereafter, notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘Act of 1894’, for short) was issued by the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department, vide Memo No. Κ.12011/25/2011-REV, dated 02.08.2011. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act of
Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226; appropriate recourse lies in filing appeals when statutory rights to appeal exist.
Point of law: Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. The vendors had co....
A Title Suit filed without jurisdiction cannot lead to valid execution; the doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to existing litigation outcomes.
The court must decide land acquisition reference applications on merits, with limitation issues addressed only after proper issue framing.
The Collector's order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not appealable to the High Court under Section 54 as the Collector is not defined as a 'Court'.
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against non-appealable orders of Commercial Courts despite restrictions in the Commercial Courts Act, preserving the High Cou....
The court clarified the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 103 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, and emphasized that the application filed under the s....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
