1. Land acquisition challenge by villagers relocated from wildlife sanctuary — Compensation under 2013 Act sought. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - AIZAWL BENCH
Michael Zothankhuma, J
Lalremruata – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
WP(C)/21/2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aldrin Lallawmzuala
For the Respondents: Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aldrin Lallawmzuala
For the Respondents: Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte
Disputed questions of fact concerning the validity and authenticity of land ownership documents must be adjudicated by a Civil Court before an order for land acquisition can be issued.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Constitution of India, Art. 300A; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, S. 24, S. 24(2)(b) and S. 25(2); Registration Act, 1908; Lushai Hills District (House Sites) Act, 1963, S. 2 and Lushai Hills District (House Sites) Act, 1953, S. 3 - Inclusion of village area in wildlife sanctuary - Claim for acquisition compensation - Invalidity of unregistered and unsigned agreements - Dispute over land title authenticity.
(B) Agreements for surrendering land rights are not binding if they are not signed by the government and are not registered as per the Registration Act, 1908. (B) Where authenticity of land holdings is seriously disputed through contradictory dates and signatures in House Site Passes and Periodic Pattas, the High Court cannot direct acquisition without the title being proven. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Certain individuals claimed ownership of lands within Serhmun village, which was included in the Dampa Tiger Reserve. While other villagers accepted a relocation compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, the petitioners sought compensation as per the 2013 Act and Art. 300A. The State respondents disputed that the petitioners ever resided in the village and challenged the authenticity of their land documents, including House Site Passes and Periodic Pattas.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Deeds of Agreement for relocation were invalid as they were not signed by the state government and were not registered. However, the court noted substantial contradictions and doubts regarding the validity of the petitioners' land holding documents.
Issues: Whether the lands of the petitioners should be acquired under the 2013 Act and whether the agreements for relocation were binding given the disputes over land titles.
Ratio Decidendi: Since there are disputed questions of fact regarding the validity and authenticity of the land holdings, the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for adjudication. A direction for land acquisition cannot be issued until the validity of the land holdings is proved.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Civil Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek acquisition under 2013 Act; State contends representation was decided and ownership claims disputed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Land holding validity disputed; agreements unsigned and unregistered; cannot bind parties; Civil Court appropriate forum. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Disputed land rights require Civil Court adjudication before acquisition direction can be granted. (Para 13 )
5. Petition disposed of — liberty to approach Civil Court to establish land holding validity. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Can a writ court order land acquisition when ownership is disputed?
No, disputed questions of fact regarding land holding validity must first be adjudicated by the Civil Court. (Para 13 )
7. Is an unregistered agreement with the government binding on parties?
No, incomplete deeds without government signature and registration are not binding, especially when compensation was not accepted. (Para 10 )
8. What is the remedy if a government authority fails to comply with a court direction under a previous writ?
The court declined to enforce the earlier direction due to subsequent letter, leaving the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. (Para 9 , 12 )
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
20.06.2022
Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioners’ case in brief is that due to the inclusion of the area covered by the Serhmun Village Council in the Dampa Tiger Reserve (Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary) vide preliminary Notification dated 24.07.2017 and final Notification dated 06.09.2018, the petitioners have to leave Serhmun Village and relocate themselves in an area outside the Dampa Tiger Reserve.
3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners having lands within the Serhmun village, the petitioners lands should be acquired and they should be given compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘2013 Act’). The petitioners’ counsel submits that though a number of villagers of Serhmun village have received compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for relocation from the Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary, the petitioners are not willing to accept the Rs. 10 lakhs compensation provided to each family for relocation, as they should be provided compensation in terms of the 2013 Act and Article 300A of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court vide WP(C) No. 123/2018, for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners as per the acquisition Act applicable in the State of Mizoram. The petitioners had also taken the stand before this Court that though other Villagers of Serhmun Village had executed the Agreement with the State respondents, for payment of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs as full and final settlement, for relocation from the Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary to an area outside the sanctuary, no agreement had been executed between the petitioners and the State respondents. Thus, the State respondents were bound to acquire the lands of the petitioners as per law. He submits that as the petitioners had not submitted any representation(s) with regard to their grievance before filing WP(C) No. 123/2018, this Court had disposed of WP(C) No. 123/2018 vide Order dated 22.08.2019, with liberty being given to the petitioners to first approach the respondent No. 5 with their grievance. A direction was also given to the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit to examine the petitioners’ representation and take a decision on the same.
5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the direction passed by this Court in its Order dated 22.08.2019 in WP(C) No. 123/2018 has not been complied with by the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit. He accordingly prays that a direction should be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit to take a decision on the petitioners’ representation, strictly in terms of the direction passed in the Order dated 22.08.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 123/2018. The petitioners’ counsel thus prays that the impugned final Notification dated 06.09.2018 and the Deputy Commissioner letter dated 05.02.2021 should be set aside. Further, the respondents should verify whether the petitioners’ lands are within the extended Dampa Tiger Reserve and if it is found to be within the extended Dampa Tiger Reserve, the lands of the petitioners should be acquired as per law.
6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the direction passed in WP(C) No. 123/2018 has been complied with by the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, vide letter dated 05.02.2021. Besides the above, the counsel for the State respondents submits that none of the petitioners have resided in Serhmun Village at any point of time. Further, the ownership of the land holdings of the petitioners is doubtful and disputed by the State respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The petitioners had submitted a representation dated NIL to the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit in terms of the Order dated 22.08.2019 passed in
