JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr. A. Viscount appearing for the respondents.

2. The prayer which has been made in this application that the respondents-State be directed to pay compensation in terms of provision of the Land Acquisition Act for taking over the land of the petitioners situated at Shajouba village and constructing diversion road known as ‘Tadubi-Shajouba Kharasom Road’. Alternatively, the prayer has been made to pass similar order as that of the order passed in case of similarly affected persons.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the residents of Lower Shajouba having dwelling houses, field, kitchen garden etc. Upper Shajouba and it happened so that in the 2nd week of September, 2007 there was heavy rainfall in that area of Shajouba resulting into land slide sweeping away a part of Tadubi-Shajouba Kharasom Road at village Upper Shajouba. Thereupon, the authority of Public Works Department instead of repairing the old road started constructing a new road passing through the homestead as well as agricultural land of the petitioners at village Upper Shajouba without following the due process of law and thereby caused loss and damages, not only to the land over which dwelling houses were there but also to the standing trees and crops. According to the case of the petitioners, the land which was utilized for constructing the diversion road was to the extent of 72,000 sq.ft. including the houses. In that event the petitioners filed a representation on 05.10.2007 before the Commissioner (Works), Government of Manipur requesting therein to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq.ft. and also compensation for causing damage to the houses, standing crops and trees etc. but the authority did not pay any heed to the request made by the petitioners and therefore, there was no alternative for the petitioners but to approach this Court for redressal of their grievances.

4. As against this, the respondents in affidavit-in-opposition has admitted about the fact relating to construction of road over the land ownership of which is being claimed by the petitioners. However, it has been pleaded that the lands situated in Hill Areas of Manipur have never been subjected to survey and as such, one cannot claim ownership over the land situated in the village of the Hill Areas. Further, it has been pleaded that in the Mao society the villagers live together in the village and each family does have right to use certain land for construction of dwelling house and kitchen garden. It is the Village Council/Village Authority who does have Supreme right over the land in the village and hence, the Village Council is free to take decision for the development of any land. On account of any development if displacement of the family takes place it is the responsibility of the Village Council to settle them. Further, case is that after road was washed away it was the Village Council on whose behest diversion road over the land having 100 ft. long and 9 ft. wide was constructed over the land, ownership of which is being claimed by the petitioners, so that the road shall remain away from the land slide zone. Thus, it has been pleaded that when the Village Council had been given sanction to construct diversion road over the said land the petitioners being not owner are not entitled to any compensation.

5. After having regard of the case of the parties, it does appear that on one hand, the petitioners are claiming compensation in terms of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act on account of the fact that the diversion road was admittedly constructed over the land of the petitioners. However, according to the case of the State, the petitioners under the customary law of Mao tribes do not have any title or ownership over the land rather it is Village Council who is free to take decision to hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document