Once land is acquired and vests in the state, compensation obligations persist and cannot be negated by later claims of non-utilization.

Judgment :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the appellant/National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL). Also heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (Writ Petitioner), Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 5/Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 – 4 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

2. The present appeal has put to challenge the impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 104/2023, wherein the learned Single Judge had directed the “Competent Authority for Land Acquisition” (CALA), to make an appropriate assessment of the land value of the writ petitioner’s land, which was affected due to construction work alongwith all other statutory benefits and to forward the same to the Union of India and NHIDCL, who was to then deposit the assessed amount for payment to the writ petitioner. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged, on the ground that the writ petition had been disposed of without giving ample opportunity to the appellants to file affidavit-in-opposition, stating that the land of the writ petitioner was no longer required.

3. The writ petitioner’s case is that the land of the writ petitioner and others had been acquired for construction of a road. The compensation for the crops and land was given to all the land owners, except the writ petitioner, who was given compensation for crops only. In the assessment for compensation made under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1956 Act’), no compensation for land value had been assessed in respect of the petitioner’s land, which was covered by Periodic Patta No. 62/2004, though compensation for land value had been assessed in respect of other land owners, for similar land holdings covered by other Periodic Pattas. A notification was also issued on 10.10.2018 under Section 3D (1) of the 1956 Act.

4. Being aggrieved by not being given compensation for the value of the land, while other land owners were given compensation for the value of the land covered by Periodic Pattas, the writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 104/2023, praying for a direction to be issued to the respondent authorities, to make assessment of the value of his land as compensation for acquisition of his land, in terms of the 1956 Act. The learned Single Judge thereafter, provided time on 3 (three) occasions, i.e., 22.08.2023, 18.09.2023 and 05.10.2023 for submission of affidavit-in-opposition by the present appellants. The same not having been done, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide the impugned Order dated 06.11.2023, by allowing the writ petition and directing CALA to make an assessment of the value of the land of the petitioner and to make payment of the compensation amount.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the road constructed by the appellants, which was completed in February 2026, did not touch or use any part of the writ petitioner’s land.As the appellants did not require the writ petitioner’s land, there was no question of paying compensation to the writ petitioner and the petitioner could take back his land. He also submits that compensation for crops and the consequential solatium for the crops has been paid to the writ petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the impugned order should be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision, after allowing the appellants to submit an affidavit-in-opposition.

7. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that ample opportunity had been given to the appellants to submit their affidavit. As there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the land of the writ petitioner had been acquired i