The state cannot acquire private land without adhering to formal statutory procedures. Informal administrative arrangements cannot substitute for legally required acquisition processes, and owners are entitled to fair compensation for the value of their property.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. I. Imchen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Union of India as well as NHIDCL and Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General of Nagaland appears on behalf of the State respondents.

2. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions belong to various villages whose lands are situated on either side of the Pfutsero to Phek Road. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that their lands have been taken away by the Respondent Authorities for widening of the Pfutsero to Phek Road without the authority of law. It is therefore the case of the petitioners herein that appropriate writ direction and order should be issued upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for taking over the land of the petitioners. It is under such circumstances, the present batch of writ petitions have been filed. It is however to observe that the petitioners duly admit that they have received damage compensation from the Respondent Authorities for the damages caused to their properties on account of taking over their lands. In other words, the grievances of the petitioners are that they have been deprived of the land compensation.

3. It is seen from the records that the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. It is the stand of the Union of India as well as the NHIDCL that they have widened the road on the assurance given by the State Government that the additional land required for widening of the road would be handed over to them free of cost by the State Government and in that regard referred to the communication dated 6th of August, 2020 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland to the Managing Director of the NHIDCL.

This Court had perused the communication dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland, but it does not appear that the State of Nagaland had assured that the land would be handed over free of costs.

It is also mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that pursuant to such communication issued on 06.08.2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Phek has also provided undertakings issued by the affected villages of the stretches of two-lane road to the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Nagaland and on the basis thereof, the constructions have been carried out.

4. The stand of the Respondent State as would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition so filed is that the Deputy Commissioner, Phek along with various members of the village councils have adopted a resolution to the effect that only damage compensation would have to be paid, but no land compensation would be required to be paid. It is also mentioned that damage compensation has been ascertained on the basis of the comprehensive guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and such damage compensation have been duly paid by issuance of public notice to all persons concerned. It may be relevant to observe that from the affidavit of the State and the comprehensive guidelines issued, it is clear that the damage compensation has been worked out in terms with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’).

5. Affidavits-in-reply have also been filed by the petitioners reiterating the statements made in th