AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Chowdhury, J.—The legitimacy of the action of the Executive in the matter of payment of compensation for acquisition of land is the key question in this proceeding. The petitioners are the Chiefs of the respective Kuki villages situated within Churachandpur district of Manipur who are the owner of the village and the village land and other immovable properties attached to it. It is contended in the writ petition that the State authority proposed to acquire certain land comprised Suangdoh and Thuangtam Kuki Hill Villages owned and possessed by the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 11 respectively for the purpose of construction of Guite Road. Notices were accordingly issued by the State Govt. and the petitioners put up their claim for compensation. While the matter rested at that stage by Office Memorandum No. 51/12/87-W(Pt) dated 19.4.1994 the Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat Works Department issued the instructions to all concerned communicating the Govt. decision on the matter of compensation on land which reads as follows :
"In supersession of this Departments Memorandum dated the 6th Feb., 1994 regarding the question of payment of land compensation for construction of roads in hill areas the Government of Manipur have decided that no compensation for construction of road will be paid to the villagers except for effecting standing properties like wet paddy fields, buildings, firms and orchards. This decision has been taken as the State PWD and BRTF has been constructing road mostly in hill areas to connect District Head Quarters and Administrative units in backward interior areas for economic development and for upliftment of the villagers in their own interest and benefit and due to high cost of construction, accelerated road development could not be made if land compensation is demanded. All Deputy Commissioners and Engineer concerned should obtain an undertaking from the villagers on non judicial paper to the effect that no land compensation would be claimed, Even if land compensation is unavoidable in exceptional case prior approval of the Government should be obtained. This orders should be enforced strictly."
The aforementioned Govt. Memorandum is based on a decision of the Govt. which is reflected in Memorandum No. 51/12/87-W (Pt) dated 26th Feb., 1994. The extract and full contents of the said notification is also quoted below :
"The question of payment of land compensation for construction of roads in hill area has been engaging the attention of the Government for sometime pase and it has now been decided that no compensation for construction of road will be paid to the villagers except for effecting standing properties like wet paddy fields, buildings, firms and orchards. This decision has been made as the State PWD and BRTF has been constructing roads mostly in hill areas to connect District Head Quarters and Administrative units in backward interior areas for economic development and for the upliftment of the villagers in their own interest and benefit and due to high cost of construction, accelerated road development could not be made if land compensation is demanded. All Deputy Commissioners and Engineer concerned should obtain an undertaking from the villagers to the effect that no land compensation would be claimed and enforce the decision strictly."
The aforesaid decision of the Works Department, Govt. of Manipur was further reiterated and re-affirmed in the communication dated 6th May, 1994 sent by the Under Secretary/Revenue, Govt. of Manipur vide No. 38/21/93-R expressing the Govt. decision not to pay compensation for unsurveyed hill land. The petitioners questioned the legitimacy of the aforesaid Executive Order as unlawful, unauthorised and arbitrary.
The respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, The Secretary (Technical) Works, Govt. of Manipur, and the Commissioner (Works), Govt. of Manipur in their affidavit took the stand that the impugned communications are inter departmental correspondences between the Government Departments exchanging its views and information and did not represent any final decision. In the affidavit it was also stated that the aforementioned communications were sent to its officers to motivate the people to participate in the developmental process, so much so, the general benefit of development would go to the villagers at large. In the affidavit the Government also referred to the communication issued by the Works Department to all the Deputy Commissioners of Manipur by letter No. 70/2/91-W dated 7.5.1994 by which the Deputy Commissioners were requested to issue notices through wide publicity to all villagers/land owners to lodge their claims for compensation once for all within three months from the date of issue of the letter where their land and properties are involved during the construction of roads. The respondents submitted that the aforementioned letter indicates the shifting of the Govt. Policy. Another affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 through the Asstt. Revenue Commissioner to the Govt. of Manipur. The Asstt Revenue Commissioner in the aforementioned affidavit stated that the Govt. made a policy decision that for unsurveyed land no compensation for construction of road would be payable to the villagers excepting for affecting standing properties like wet paddy fields, building, firms and orchards. It was also stated that the aforementioned decision was taken by the State Govt. as the State PWD and BRTF are constructing connecting roads between Administrative Head Quarters in backward and interior hill areas for economic development and for upliftment of villagers. The petitioners are the villagers who would also be benefited within the construction of the said road. The affidavits as well as the Govt. stand is not very much clear. On the one hand the Governmental authority has pleaded that the Govt. took a policy decision not to pay compensation for construction of roads on the unsurveyed, land on the other hand the Govt. directed the Deputy Commissioners to issue notices for claiming compensation. There is a law for acquisition of land for public purposes known as Land Acquisition Act which is fully applicable in the area in question which provide a mechanism of acquisition and requisition of land on payment of compensation. This aspect of the matter is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that under the Constitutional Scheme persons are not to be deprived of properties save by authority of law. The right to hold property though has ceased to be a fundamental right in view of the Constitutional 44th amendment Act, 1978 but it has become a Constitutional right under Article 300A. Property mentioned in Article 300A are relatable to those properties that can be acquired, disposed or taken possession of. It also includes properties acquired by inheritance. Under the Constitution the Executive Authority is not empowered to deprive a person of his properties of any kind without pointing to any law or legal authority, howsoever laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be. Those who take the charge of administration is to mobilise its resources for development. For that purpose it cannot compel others to part with their property without any authority of law. The extent of the Executive power of the State enjoined in Article 162 of the Constitution is subject to limitation imposed by the Constitution more particularly by Article 300A. The Executive power of the State though co-terminus with the legislative power of the State Legislature the said Executive power is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including Article 300A, State and its officers can not deprive a person of his property without the authority of law made by the legislature in aid of Article 162.
The respondents in its affidavits as well as in the course of argument through its counsel Mr. R.K. Sanajaoba, learned Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. Mohendra, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents faintly questioned the authority of the petitioners claiming for compensation as owners. According to respondents the lands remained unsurveyed and therefore question of paying compensation to the land owners does not arise. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners countering the argument of the respondents submitted that the hill areas in Manipur including the areas in which the lands of the petitioners are situated, are unsurveyed nor there are any record of rights or patta prepared by the State Govt. from the advent of the administration under the British regime. Although out in this area no land revenue is collected by the State Govt. save and except hill/house taxes which are realised by the Govt. as a token of the use and enjoyment of the land, Mr. A Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. Counsel also referred to the number of judicial pronouncements on the issue that the Chief of the village is owner of the land of the entire village and that the Chief is hereditary. As per the Kuki custom the Chief is the owner of the land of the entire village and he gets "lamban" (rent in cash or kind) from the villagers. The learned counsel referred to the Divisional Bench judgment of this court in Ningom and Ors. v. Samjamang, Chief, reported in (1990) 2 GauLR 331. Mr. A Nilamani, learned counsel also referred to another Divisional Bench judgement of this court in Vumsuan and 3 Ors. v. Nokam Vaiphei and 3 Ors. reported in 1995 3 GLT 617 pertaining to right of the Kuki Chief qua matters relating to land. The plea of the respondents that since the land belonged to unsurveyed land Govt. is not bound to pay compensation, is not sustainable in law. It goes contrary to the accepted customs and customary rights prevailing in the area and the settled legal position.
For the foregoing reasons the impugned Govt. division vide Memo No. 51/12/87-W (Pt) dated 26.2.1994 and the consequential orders passed thereunder cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned decision contained in Memo dated 26.2.1994 and all actions pursuant thereto stands quashed. The respondents are also directed to take necessary steps for payment of compensation to all the persons including the petitioners whose lands are acquired by the State, as per law for payment of compensation for acquisition of their land and other properties standing thereon, if not already such steps are initiated by the respondents.
In the result the writ petition is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.