Manipur High Court
Shri As Barnabas vs Page on 14 March, 2024
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
JOHN Digitally signed
TELEN
by JOHN TELEN
KOM
Date: 2024.03.15
KOM
13:09:59 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 607 of 2019
1. Shri AS Barnabas, aged about 68 years S/O (L) Ngasaiphung of
Hundung Village P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
2. Shri K.W. Ngaranmi, aged about 57 years S/O (L) KW. Ramsing
of Nungshang CT Village P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District
Manipur-795142.
3. Shri RSM. Jonah, aged about 67 years S/O (L) Changmatai of
Hungpung Village P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukrul District Manipur-
795142.
4. Shri ZAS. Kayangnam, aged about 68 years S/O (L) ZAS. Vashi of
Hungpung Village, P.O & P.S Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
5. Shri SK. Premson, aged about 45 years S/O (L) SK. Vashum of
Hungpung Village P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
6. Shri KSV. David, aged about 62 years, S/O (L) Yarteo of
Hungpung Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
7. Shri CS. Xavier, aged about 50 years S/O (L) Thadus of Hungpung
Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-795142.
8. Shri KSV. Tharawung, aged about 56 years S/O Hangphui of
Hungpung Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
9. Shri YL. Hungmayung, aged about 41 years S/O (L) Areng of
Hungpung Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
10. MKS. Hungam, aged about 52 years S/O (L) Naomazum of
Hungpung Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-
795142.
11. Zanyo Varam, aged about 45 years S/O Changmatai of Lungshang
Village, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul District Manipur-795142.
........ Petitioners
Vs.
Page 1
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary (Road Transport
and Highways), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Government of India, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliament street, New
Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhavan, Ring
Road, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110010.
3. The Commander, 25 BRTF, C/o 99 APO, Lamphel, Imphal-795004.
4. The Officer Commanding, 84 RCC (GREF), C/o 99 APO, Ukhrul-
795142.
5. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/Secretary
(Revenue), Government of Manipur, Secretariat Block, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Ukhrul
District, Manipur-795142.
7. The Executive Director NHIDCL, Regional Office Manipur, Officers'
Club, Lamphelpat P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795004.
8. The General Manager (Project) NHIDCL, PMU Ukhrul, Khampason,
Near Session Court Ukhrul, P.O. & P.S. Ukhrul, Manipur-795142.
.......... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr. RS Reisang, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Wungpam Yangya, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr. Panel Counsel and
Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, GA.
Date of Hearing : 15.01.2024.
Date of Judgment & Order : 14.03.2024.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. RS Reisang, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Wungpam
Yangya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned
senior panel counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-4, 7 & 8 and Mr. Niranjan
Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 5 & 6.
Page 2
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for directing the
respondents No. 1 to 4 to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul, in his award of compensation dated 15.12.2018 in
Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2015 and also praying for directing the respondents
for payment of interest to the affected land owners as provided under section 80
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
[3] The brief facts of the present case are that by a letter dated 07.02.2007, EE
(Civil) Officer Commanding 84 Road Construction Coy (GREF), approached the
Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul to initiate land acquisition proceedings for
improvement of NH-150 (now 202) from Yaingangpokpi to Ukhrul to Double Lane
having wide of 24 meter in open areas and 20 meter in build up areas.
[4] As per the request made by the requiring authority, the Deputy
Commissioner, Ukhrul issued a notification dated 01.10.2009 for conducting
verification/survey of land/areas to be affected in developing double lane
specification of the existing status of NH-150 from Hundung Junction to
Yaingangpokpi by a joint team comprising of Revenue Department, representative
of BRTF/84 RCC (GREF), EE (PWD) Ukhrul, DO (H & SC) Ukhrul and DFO (Forest)
Ukhrul w.e.f., 05.10.2009 till completion of the verification/survey process. The
joint survey team conducted the survey and measurement of the road stretches
and after completion of the said survey and measurement, the DC approached the
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur, for issuance of preliminary
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the
Commissioner (Revenue) instructed the DC that a tentative amount of
compensation should be deposited by the requiring department so that land
acquisition proceeding could be initiated.
[5] As per the instruction of the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur, the DC, Ukhrul make tentative assessment of compensation in respect of
Page 3
lands and standing properties likely to be affected in developing the NH-150 from
Hundung to Finch Corner into double lane specification altogether amounting to
Rs. 3,72,34,946 /- (Rupees three crores seventy two lakhs thirty four thousand nine
hundred and forty six) and submitted the said estimated amount of compensation
to the Officer Commanding, 84 RCC (GREF), under a letter dated 08.12.2009. In
the said letter, the DC, Ukhrul made it clear that the assessment of compensation
for other categories of land except residential, paddy field and farm have been
excluded and that the final award of compensation can be ascertained after
completing all the mandatory stages of land acquisition proceeding under provision
of Land Acquisition Act.
[6] Pursuant to the submission of the said estimated amount of compensation
by the DC, Ukhrul, the requiring department sanctioned and deposited the
estimated amount of compensation to the DC, Ukhrul, vide letter dated 15.10.2012
of the EE (Civ) OIC CA.
After depositing the said estimated amount of compensation by the requiring
department, land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Commissioner
(Revenue), Government of Manipur by issuing a notification dated 02.11.2012
under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 notifying that an area of
77.2453 acres of land described in the schedule, annexed to the said notification,
are likely to be needed for development/improvement of NH-150 road stretch from
Hundung Junction, Ukhrul to Finch Corner in Ukhrul District. However, before
completion of the said land acquisition proceeding, a new Act, i.e., the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013" for short) came into force, repealing the
earlier Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as such, the Government of Manipur decided
to initiate the Land Acquisition proceeding afresh under the said Act of 2013.
Accordingly, the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur issued a notification
dated 22.06.2015 under section 11 (1) of the Act of 2013 notifying that the land
Page 4
measuring 78.6938 acres of land described in the schedule, annexed to the said
notification, are likely to be needed for development of NH-150 (now NH-202) from
Hundung to Finch Corner in Ukhrul District. In the said notification, the number of
land owners who are going to be affected by the said land acquisition are shown
as 266.
[7] After completing all the procedures and formalities prescribed under the Act
of 2013 and the Rules made thereunder, the DC, Ukhrul passed an award of
compensation dated 15.12.2018 in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2015 amounting
to Rs. 26,79,37,214/- (Rupess twenty six crores seventy nine lakhs thirty seven
thousand two hundred fourteen) for payment to the affected land owners. In the
said award, the DC, Ukhrul classified the acquired land into 4 (four) categories and
determined the market value of the land as under:-
"Classification:
" (1) Road side/DHQ Areas:
(a) The areas of land which is used as commercial site situated
at main market is classified as Road side/DHQ Areas. As per MGV
the market value of this land is fixed at Rs. 50/- per sqft.
(2) Residential/Inhabited Areas:
The areas of land which is used as residential areas which market
value is fixed at Rs. 30/- per sqft.
(3) Paddy fields: paddy field is permanently constructed field which
can be cultivated in every season with proper supply of water. Some
of the paddy fields are simultaneously used as pisciculture farm.
Generlly, market value of permanent paddy field is high in this area.
The market value of paddy field is fixed at Rs. 15/- per sqft.
(4) Uninhabited Areas: it is the land where quarrying stones or
sands, Farm land, Ingkhol and Uyok which are not inhabited for
which market value is fixed at Rs. 10/- per sqft."
[8] In the said award, the DC, Ukhrul requested the requiring department, i.e.,
25 BRTF (GREF) and 84 RCC (GREF) C/o 99 APO to deposit the awarded amount
of compensation less the amount already deposited by them earlier along with an
amount of Rs. 13,39,686/- to meet the charges of executing land acquisition
proceedings. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul also wrote a letter dated
Page 5
15.12.2018 to the Officer Commanding, 84 RCC (GREF), furnishing a copy of the
said award of compensation dated 15.12.2018 and requesting to deposit the
awarded compensation amount within 3 (three) months' time from the date of
notification of the award.
[9] After passing of the award of compensation, the requiring department wrote
several letters to the DC, Ukhrul seeking clarification with regard to the area of the
acquired land and the amount of compensation awarded by the DC, Ukhrul. In
response to the said letters, the DC, Ukhrul also wrote several letters furnishing
explanation/clarification with regard to the queries raised by the requiring
department and also requesting repeatedly to deposit the compensation amount
so as to enable payment of the awarded compensation to the concerned affected
persons and also pointing out that delay in payment may attract additional
compensation in the form of interest as provided under section 80 of the Act of
2013. However, requiring department refused to deposit the awarded
compensation amount despite the repeated request made by the DC, Ukhrul.
Having been aggrieved, the petitioners, who are some of the affected land owners,
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for redressing their
grievances.
[10] The reasons given by the respondents No. 1-4 for refusing to deposit the
amount of compensation awarded by the Collector are as under:-
(i) By an award of compensation dated 30.03.1993 passed earlier by the DC,
Ukhrul, compensation had already been given to villagers of Hundung for a
total area of 151.85 acres of land for construction of single lane road having
width of 9 meters from Hundung Junction (Km 544.240) to Nungshangkhong
Bridge (Km 527.995). For development of the said road stretch to double
lane having width of 24 meters in open areas and 20 meters in built up areas
from Hundung Junction (Km 544.240) to Finch Corner (Km. 522.860) in
Page 6
Ukhrul District, the present land acquisition proceedings have been initiated
for acquiring the land measuring 78.6938 acres.
The length of the road stretch from Hundung Junction to Finch Corner
is 21.38 kms only. According to the calculation of the respondents No. 1-4,
the total area required for construction of double lane having width of 24
meters in open areas and 20 meters in built up areas for the said road stretch
of 21.38 kms will come to only 125.01 acre. The earlier acquired land of
151.85 plus the present acquired land of 79.44 acre for the same stretch of
road comes to a total area of 231.29 acre. According to the respondents No.
1-4, the said total area of 231.29 acre is far in excess of the required area
of 125.01 acre for construction of the said road stretch to double lane and
as such, there is an overlapping of the area of the land claimed for payment
of compensation. Accordingly, the respondents are not agreeable to pay
double compensation for the same piece of land on the same road stretch,
since it will result in lost to Government Exchequer.
(ii) The Government should not be made to pay compensation for the same
land more than once nor acquired an area more than that is needed for the
said road construction and that the total area of land claimed for
compensation cannot be more than the area that is required for the said
road construction, unless, there is an overlapping of the areas claimed for
compensation. As compensations have already been given on the basis of
the award dated 30.03.1993 passed earlier by the DC, Ukhrul for an area of
151.85 acres, the said land having an area of 151.85 acres shall be deemed
to have already been acquired and as the area required for development of
the aforesaid road stretch to double lane works out to only 125.01 acre, no
additional land is required and as such, the amount of Rs. 388.69 lakhs
deposited earlier by the respondents No. 1-4 in connection with the present
land acquisition proceedings should be returned back.
Page 7
[11] Refuting the reasons given by the respondents No. 1-4, it has been
submitted by Mr. RS Reisang, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
that in connection with the land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1980s for
construction of Mini Cement Factory, Imphal Ukhrul Road and Nungshangkhong
Mini Hidro Electricity Power Project within the area of Hundung Village in Ukhrul
District, the Hundung's victims of development formed by villagers of Hundung filed
a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1331/90/1/91 before the Guwahati High Court
seeking for issuing a direction to the respondents to grant compensation in respect
of lands which were utilized in the construction of the Imphal-Ukhrul Road lying
within the land area of Hundung Village, even though such land was not acquired.
The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court by a judgment dated
02.02.1993 for payment of land compensation by directing to pay land
compensation in respect of the lands which had not been acquired within the period
of 3 (three) months from the date of the said order.
[12] In order to comply with the direction given by the Guwahati High Court, the
DC, Ukhrul passed an award of compensation dated 30.03.1993 for payment of
compensation in respect of land affected by construction of road stretches from
Hundung Junction (Km 544.240) to Nungshangkhong Bridge (Km 527.995) for an
area of 151.85 acres of land in the name of 76 owners.
It has been submitted that the aforesaid award of compensation passed by
the DC, Ukhrul was without verifying/following due procedure of survey and
measurement and without following the land acquisition proceedings provided
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and just to avoid contempt proceedings
pending in the High Court.
[13] The learned senior counsel also submitted that the distance between
Hundung Junction (Km 544.240) and Nungshangkhong Bridge (Km 527.995) is only
about 17 kms in length and the width of the single lane constructed on the said
stretch of road was 9 meters only and as such, the total area for construction of
Page 8
the said single lane comes to about 37.78 acres only, hence, the area of 151.85
acres of land claimed for payment of compensation as against the actual area of
37.78 acres of land required for construction of the said stretch of road was
absolutely incorrect. It has been further submitted that the said compensation
award dated 30.03.1993 was passed by the DC, Ukhrul on the basis of the claims
made by the petitioners in CR No. 1331/90/1/91 without carrying out any
verification or survey/measurement and without following due procedure
prescribed under the land acquisition Act.
[14] It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present land
acquisition proceedings have been carried out on the request made by the requiring
authority and after strictly following all the procedures prescribed under the Act of
2013 and passed the compensation award. At the time of survey and measurement
of the land and other standing properties likely to be affected during the work of
development of the said road stretch into double lane, not only the concerned
authorities of the State Government but the representative of the respondents No.
1-4 were also present. In fact, since the issuance of the notification dated
22.06.2015 under section 11 (1) of the Act of 2013, the respondents No. 1-4 and
their representative knew all along that the area of land to be acquired was 78.6938
acres and they never raised any objection throughout the land acquisition
proceedings and that the respondents are raising their objection only after the
passing of the award and that too at a very belated stage. The learned senior
counsel vehemently submitted that as the area of land to be acquired was notified
after carrying out a detail and joint survey and measurement, wherein the
representative of the respondent No. 1-4 was also present, the respondents did not
and could not raise any objection to the area of the land to be acquired during the
land acquisition proceedings.
[15] The learned senior counsel submitted that in the earlier land acquisition
proceedings, the length for construction of the single lane road was only about 17
Page 9
kms between Hundung Junction and Nungshangkhong Bridge whereas, in the
present land acquisition proceedings the length of the road stretch for development
of double lane from Hundung Junction to Finch Corner is about 21.38 km and as
such, the claim of the respondents No. 1-4 that there is overlapping of the area is
absurd and without substance . It has also been submitted that in the earlier land
acquisition proceedings the claimants for land compensation were only about 76 in
number whereas, in the present land acquisition proceedings there are more than
266 land owners who are entitled to the compensation amount. The learned senior
counsel accordingly submitted that these large number of land owners cannot be
deprived of their entitled compensation only on the basis of absurd and
unreasonable objection raised by the respondents No. 1-4.
[16] The learned senior counsel submitted that if the respondents No. 1-4
considered the area earlier acquired for construction of the initial single lane road
in 1980 was 151.85 acres and if such area was more than sufficient required for
widening into double lane, then why have the respondents No. 1-4 approached the
DC, Ukhrul and requested for acquisition of additional land for development and
widening of the said single lane into double lane and requested for initiating land
acquisition proceedings. The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted that
such action of the respondents No. 1-4 clearly shows that their claim that there is
overlapping of the area of the land claimed for payment of compensation is absurd
and without any substance.
[17] The learned senior counsel lastly submitted that the requiring authority had
taken possession of the affected land belonging to the petitioners in 2012 and the
development of the said road stretch into double lane had already been completed,
however, the requiring authority has not deposited the compensation amount
awarded by the DC, Ukhrul till today. The learned senior counsel submitted that as
the affected land belonging to the petitioners had already been taken possession
Page 10
by the requiring authority, the petitioners are entitled to get interests as provided
under section 80 of the Act of 2013.
[18] I have heard the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties at length and also carefully examined all the materials available on
record. In the present case, when the Secretary (Revenue), Government of
Manipur, issued the notification dated 22.06.2015 under section 11 (1) of the Act
of 2013, the area of land measuring 78.6938 acres required for development of
NH-150 (Now NH-202) from Hundung to Finch Corner in Ukhrul District, which was
proposed to be acquired, was clearly mentioned. The said area of land proposed to
be acquired was notified after holding a Joint Survey and Measurement carried out
by a team of officer including the representatives of the respondents No. 1-4. Even
though, the respondents No. 1-4 have clear knowledge about the area of land to
be acquired was 78.6938 acres, they never raised any objection at the time of
carrying out the Joint Survey or during the whole process of the land acquisition
proceedings. In fact, the respondents No. 1-4 even deposited the tentative
compensation amount of Rs. 38869448/- for payment of compensation for the
acquisition of the said area of 78.6938 acres of land without any objection or
protest. Only after passing of the award of compensation dated 15.12.2018 by the
DC, Ukhrul, the respondents No. 1-4 refused to deposit the said compensation
amount for the reasons given hereinabove.
[19] Both the petitioners and the respondents No. 1-4 agreed that the total area
required for construction of double lane having width of 24 meters in open areas
and 20 meters in built up areas for the road stretch of 21.38 kms from Hundung
Junction to Finch Corner will come to only about 125.01 acres. If that is so, there
is no escaping from the fact that the area of 151.85 acres claimed by the Hundung
victims for construction of single lane having width of only 9 meters and for the
road stretch of about 17 kms only cannot be taken as true or correct. In view of
the above, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned senior
Page 11
counsel appearing for the petitioners that some mistake have been committed by
the authorities at the time of passing the award dated 30.03.1993 in the earlier
land acquisition proceedings with regard to the area of land required to be acquired.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that on account of the mistakes
committed by the authorities in the earlier land acquisition proceedings, the
petitioners cannot be made to suffer by depriving them of their right to get fair
compensation for the lands and the other standing properties belonging to them,
which have been acquired by the requiring authorities by following the due process
of law as provided under the Act of 2013.
[20] It is a well settled principle of law and trite to state that the land
compensation Act and Rules made therein are a complete code in itself. Under
section 64 of the Act of 2013 it is, inter-alia, provided that any person interested
who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the
authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights
of rehabilitation and resettlement or the apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested and that upon receipt of such written application/ objection,
the Collector shall make a reference to the appropriate authority within 30 (thirty)
days.
[21] In the present case, the respondents No. 1-4 did not submit any written
application to the Collector raising their objection to the award passed by the DC,
Ukrul and requesting for referring the matter to the authority for deciding the same
as provided under section 64 of the Act of 2013 and as such, this Court is not
inclined to entertained the objections raised by the respondents No. 1-4 in the
present writ petition. This Court is also of the considered view that without raising
any objection to the award of compensation passed by the DC, Ukhrul as provided
under section 64 of the Act of 2013, the refusal of the respondents No. 1-4 to
Page 12
deposit the balance compensation amount due payable to the petitioners despite,
repeated request made in this regard, are very unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.
In the case of "Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation & Ors." reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353, it has been
held by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"Para 9. The right to property is now considered to be not only a
constitutional or a statutory right but also a human right. Though, it is not
a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights
are considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to
health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment, etc.
Now however, human rights are gaining an even greater multifaceted
dimension. The right to property is considered very much to be a part of
such new dimension.
"Para 17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a
clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory
authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there
is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-
fulfilment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said
uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national
activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill-
treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot
a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights,
under the garb of industrial development."
[22] As the lands and other standing properties of the petitioners have been
taken over by the acquiring authorities before completion of the acquisition
proceedings and before payment of or depositing the amount of compensation and
as such factum has not been denied by any of the respondents, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to get interests as provided
under section 80 of the Act of 2013.
[23] Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case
and keeping in view the well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to the
relief sought for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition
is disposed of with the following directions:-
Page 13
(i) The DC, Ukhrul is directed to calculate the interests due payable to
the petitioners strictly in terms of the provisions under section 80 of
the Act of 2013 and the Rules made thereunder and to submit the
same to the requiring department for payment of such interests along
with the amount of compensation. Such process should be completed
within a period of 3 (three) months from today;
(ii) the respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation
as awarded by the DC, Ukhrul in his award of compensation dated
15.12.2018, less the amount already deposited, along with interest
calculated by the DC, Ukhrul as directed hereinabove, within a period
of 6 (six) months from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Sapana
FR/NFR
Page 14
