Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Union Of India And 5 Ors on 12 November, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010098472023
2024:GAU-AS:11017-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/151/2023
LAITLUANGPUI AND 21 ORS.
S/O LAIBUANGA
2: S. LALTHLAMUANA
S/O RONGHAKA
3: ZAMANI
W/O (L) KAPLINGA
4: LAIBUANGA
S/O (L) KAPLINGA
5: R. ROTLUANGA
S/O (L) AWITHANGA
6: K. ROTLUANGA
S/O (L) THANCHHUNGA
7: ZATHANGPUII
W/O (L) LAIVELA
8: C.ZARZOLIANA
S/O (L) THANZIKA
9: ZABILHKAIA
S/O (L) HLAWNHMUNGA
10: LALDINPUIA
S/O LALVUANA
11: T KAPKIMA
S/O (L) ROHMANA
12: HRANGCHHUANA
F/O LALRAMNGHETA
Page No.# 2/11
13: C. KAPHNUNA
F/O DAWNGLIANA
14: ENGLIANA
S/O (L) RUALKHUMA
15: LALVUANA
S/O (L) THANKHUMA
16: KAPNGURA
S/O (L) ALLUAIA
17: HUALCHHUNGA
S/O (L) VANSANGA
18: LAIKUNGA
S/O (L) THANKHUMA
19: VANHLIRA
S/O (L) LIANKHUMA
20: LALZARZOVA SAILO @ LALZARA SAILO
S/O LALSANGA
21: SAIRUMA
F/O (L) SAIDINGA
22: LALBUKA
S/O (L) AWITHANGA
ALL PETITIONERS ARE FROM KHANKAWN VILL
AND REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO. 1
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI.
2:THE COMMANDER OF GREF SELLING MIZORAM
3:THE O.C. GREF 74 RCC ZOTLANG CHAMPHAI
4:THE STATE OF MIZORAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY
LAND REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION OFFICER
5:THE DISTRICT LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
GOVT. OF MIZORAM AIZAWL
Page No.# 3/11
6:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHAMPHAI
CHAMPHAI DISTRICT MIZORAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J MANGSUANHAU, MR. S S S RAHMAN,MR. M R
SODIAL,MS S Z HAYAT,MS B H SHIRIN
Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C., MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, DY. S.G.I.(R 1,2 &3),GA,
MIZORAM
Linked Case : WA/152/2023
R. B. LALNGAILIANA AND 13 ORS.
S/O (L) BIAKTLUANGA
2: THLANTHANGA
S/O (L) LIANTAIA
3: KEITAWNA
S/O (L) MANGBANGA
4: BIAKHLUII
C/O C.ZOLIANA
5: LALZUALA
S/O (L) ZANAWNA
6: THANTLINTLUANGA
S/O (L) THANTLINLIANA
7: BAWIHCHHUMA
S/O (L) KHAWTINKULHA
8: LALTHANGPUIA
S/O (L) THANCHHUMA
9: LALRONGURA
S/O (L) HRANGSAILOVA
10: LALDUHA
C/O M.C. ZANEIHCHUNGA
11: ERIC LALDINGPUIA
S/O (L) RAMCHUII
12: L.C. LALRAMMENGA
C/O NAWLSANGA
13: MSK LUNGHNEMA
S/O (L) HLAWNMANGA
Page No.# 4/11
14: B. LALRAMLIANA
S/O (L) NGUNSANGI
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION. NEW DELHI.
2:THE COMMANDER OF GREF SELLING MIZORAM
3:THE O.C. GREF 74 RCC ZOTLANG CHAMPHAI
4:THE STATE OF MIZORAMTHROUGH THE SECRETARY
LAND REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT
5:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHAMPHAI
CHAMPHAI DISTRICT MIZORAM
6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORAM
P.H.E. DEPARTMENT AIZAWL
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPHE DEPARTMENT
CHAMPAI (WATSAN DIVISION) CHAMPAI
------------
Advocate for : MR. J MANGSUANHAU
Advocate for : C.G.C. appearing for UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
Linked Case : WA/154/2023
NAWLSANGA R/B R.B LALNGAILIANA
S.O. HLAWNMANGA(L)
FARKWAN VILLAGE
REPRESENTED BY R.B LALNGAILIANA ATTORNEY
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION
NEW DELHI
2:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CHAMPHAI CHAMPHAI DISTRICT MIZORAM
3:THE O.C. GREF 74 RCC AT ZOTLANG
CHAMPHAI
Page No.# 5/11
4:THE COMMANDER OF GREF AT SELING MIZORAM
5:THE STATE OF MIZORAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY
LAND REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION OFFICER
6:THE SECRETARY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHD DEPT.)
GOVT. OF MIZORAM
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHD DEPT. CHAMPHAI)
GOVT. OF MIZORAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. J MANGSUANHAU
Advocate for : C.G.C. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 05.11.2024
Date of Judgment & Order : 12.11.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. J. Mangsuanhua, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of all
the appellants in these 3(three) writ appeals. Also heard Mr. A. Barua,
learned Government Advocate, Mizoram; and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel,
appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI,
representing their respective respondents.
2. The above-noted writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants,
herein, presenting a challenge to the common Judgment & Order, dated
20.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)140/2019,
WP(c)91/2014, and WP(c)49/2015.
Page No.# 6/11
3. WRIT APPEAL NO. 151/2023:
The appellants, herein, had initially approached the writ Court by way of
filing a writ petition being WP(c)98/2014 which was dismissed by this Court
vide order, dated 01.07.2015. A writ appeal being WA No. 01/2016
assailing the said order, dated 01.07.2015, was disposed of by a Division
Bench of this Court vide order, dated 30.07.2018, requiring the appellants
to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with their claim for
compensation. The said order, dated 30.07.2018, was assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by the appellants by way of filing a Special Leave to
Appeal(C) No. 28196 & 28197 of 2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order, dated 02.11.2018, disposed of the said applications by granting
liberty to the appellants, herein, to approach and pursue their
representations before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.
The appellants, thereafter, submitted representation before the
jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 17.12.2018, which, however, came
to be rejected by the said authority vide order, dated 23.09.2019.
Aggrieved; the appellants, herein, had instituted WP(c)140/2019,
challenging the order of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, dated
23.09.2019, and further praying for initiation of fresh acquisition
proceedings under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013,
for grant of adequate compensation in respect of the lands under their
possession.
Page No.# 7/11
4. WRIT APPEAL NO. 152/2023:
The appellants, herein, who were possessing lands by virtue of land
settlement certificates and mining passes issued to them by the authorities,
being aggrieved by the acquisition of their respective plots of land made in
the year 2010 and inadequate compensation granted to them, had
instituted the aforesaid WP(c)91/2014, inter alia, praying for quashing of
the earlier process of acquisition of their respective plots of land in the year
2010 and for re-assessment of the compensation receivable by them under
the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
5. WRIT APPEAL NO. 154/2023:
The appellant, herein, by contending that issuance of land settlement
certificate in respect of the land under his possession, was under process,
had prayed for an interference with the earlier acquisition of his land made
during the year 2010 and for re-assessment of the compensation due to
him under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
6. The above-noted facts would go to reveal that the appellants in WA
No. 151/2023 and the appellant in WA No. 154/2023, at the time of
acquisition of their respective plots of land in the year 2010, did not
possess any land settlement certificates and/or any pass in one form or the
other for the plots of land under their possession. The appellants in WA No.
152/2023, however, possessed the land settlement certificates and/or
mining passes in respect of the plots of land under their respective
possession.
Page No.# 8/11
7. The respondent authorities on the acquisition of the lands under the
possession of the appellants, herein, had sanctioned the compensation
amount so computed in respect of each of the appellants involved in the
above-noted writ appeals and the same were disbursed to them. The
appellants, had, thereafter, on coming into force of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Settlement Act, 2013; claiming for a re-assessment of the compensation
due to them under the provisions of the said Act of 2013, instituted the
above-noted writ petitions.
8. The learned Single Judge on considering the issues arising in the
above-noted writ petitions i.e. WP(c)140/ 2019, WP(c)91/2014, and
WP(c)49/2015; proceeded to dispose of the said writ petitions vide the
common judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022. The learned Single Judge on
appreciating the materials coming on record and upon hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the parties; drew conclusions and passed directions,
as under:
"...........The facts in the present case are different. The petitioners do not have
any document whatsoever to show that they are the legal owners of the land they
claim to be theirs. Despite this, an assessment was done with the cooperation of
all concerned involving the petitioners themselves and the amount that was
assessed has been paid to them. Therefore, the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 140/2019
are not found to be entitled to any further compensation.
21. In respect of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 91/2014, it may be seen that the cost
assessment for acquisition of the land and buildings was done in a similar
manner and all the petitioners have been given their respective share of
compensation as admitted by the petitioners themselves. Apart from a sum of Rs.
1,33,79,929/- deposited by the BRTF as compensation, 30% of the said amount
which is Rs. 40,13,979/- has been deposited by the BRTF towards solatium as
computed by the Deputy Commissioner, Champhai. Instead of disbursing this
amount to the land owners, the same was diverted to the Public Health
Engineering Department (PHED) of the State, Champhai Watsan Division, which is
to the tune of Rs. 34,65,000/- for dismantling and repairing the water pipe lines
including construction of water tank, which was demolished during the
construction/improvement of Farkawn to Thekte road. Out of the solatium amount
Page No.# 9/11
deposited by the BRTF, another amount of Rs. 5,48,979/- was also disbursed to the
District Local Administration Officer (DLAO) for the construction of retaining wall
and side drain. These two facts have been clearly stated and admitted by the
State respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in their common affidavit filed on 12.02.2021 in
WP(C) No. 91/2014. After noticing this, this Court had also directed the PHED
(respondent Nos. 6 & 7) to file an affidavit regarding disbursement of the
aforesaid amount to the Department. The respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have filed their
affidavit accordingly on 28.09.2021 and 18.09.2021 respectively, admitting that
the amount has been received by the Department. It is noticed that in the
compilation of cost assessment for acquisition of land and buildings for the work
"improvement of Farkawn to Thekte Road (0.00 kmp 11.42 kmp)," in respect of
Farkawn village, an estimate/assessment for Rs. 1,14,925/- was made for Power &
Electricity Department Transformer at Theirekawn. In fact, similar assessment
could have been made for PHED pipelines that was likely to be damaged but
surprisingly, the same was not done.
22. As already stated herein above, an amount of Rs. 40,13,979/- was sanctioned
and deposited before the Collector concerned as the solatium payable to the land
owners concerned having their respective land passes and therefore, the same
could not have been diverted for some other purpose for which it was not
sanctioned. Therefore, while declining not to entertain the writ petition towards
the claim for initiating a fresh proceeding for acquisition of their land, the
amount that was diverted will have to be refunded for payment to the land owners
concerned. Accordingly, the State respondents in the PHED and the Local
Administration Department are directed to refund the solatium amount which
was disbursed to them by depositing the same before the District Collector,
Champhai within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order failing to which, the amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till it is fully paid. The amount
deposited shall be disbursed to the land owners concerned without delay.
23. As for WP(C) No. 49/2015, as already stated herein above, the petitioner does
not possess any sort of pass for his claim over the land in question and therefore,
the findings arrived at in WP(C) No. 140/2019 will also cover this case. In other
words, his claim for further compensation or for initiating acquisition
proceedings afresh for the reasons already assigned in the foregoing paragraphs
is rejected."
9. We have perused the conclusions and directions as passed by the
learned Single Judge vide the common judgment & order, dated
20.06.2022, in WP(c)140/2019, WP(c)91/2014, and WP(c)49/2015, and
are of the considered view that the conclusions so drawn by the learned
Single Judge, are not erroneous and is supported by the materials available
on record.
Page No.# 10/11
10. The acquisition proceedings in the matter having concluded in the
year 2010 with release to each of the appellants, the amount of
compensation so computed and which were accepted by each of them
without any objection; the appellants, herein, could not have re-agitated
the same by instituting the above-noted writ petitions. The learned Single
Judge upon noticing the fact that the appellants in WA No. 151/2023 and
WA No. 154/2023, were not possessing any document to show that they
were the legal land owners of the plots of land which they claim to be theirs
and they having already been compensated for the crops or vegetation and
built-up structures, as available in the respective plots of land occupied by
them; had held that the said appellants were not entitled to claim for
further compensation and/or for a direction for initiation of acquisition
proceedings, afresh. The said conclusions of the learned Single Judge,
would not, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, call for any
interference.
11. Insofar as the appellants in WA No. 152/2023 are concerned; the
learned Single Judge on noticing that the solatium as computed in their
respective cases, having already been deposited by the BRTF authorities
and the same having not been disbursed; had directed the concerned
authority to release the same to the appellants along with an interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till it is fully paid. The
said directions as passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of WA No.
152/2023, vide the common judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022; in our
considered view, redresses the grievance of the appellants, therein, and
they, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, would also not be
entitled to claim that a re-assessment of the compensation due to them for
acquisition of their respective plots of land, is required to be done in terms
Page No.# 11/11
of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
12. In view of the above conclusions; we are of the considered view that
the common judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(c)140/2019, WP(c)91/2014, and WP(c)49/2015; would
not call for any interference and accordingly, the instant writ appeals are
held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, stand dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
