AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
1.Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Mary L.
Khiangte, Govt. Advocate appears for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, even though notices were deemed to
be served upon them vide Order dated 03.04.2018.
The petitioners’ case in brief is that the BRTF had constructed a road through the lands of the petitioners and as no compensation was paid to
them for acquisition of the same, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 160/2016 and WP(C) No. 224/2016. This Court disposed of the above two writ
petitions vide Order dated 22.09.2016 and 08.12.2016 by directing the respondents to conduct a spot verification of the petitioners lands, covered by
their respective Garden Passes. This Court also directed that if it was found that the road had been constructed over the petitioners’ lands, a
supplementary Award should be made for acquisition of their lands.
The respondents thereafter, conducted a joint verification of the petitioners lands and as per the joint verification report dated 07.02.2017, issued by
the Sub-Deputy Commissioner, Siaha District, Siaha, it was found that the lands of all the petitioners were found to be beyond 00 Km - 20 Kms.
stretch of the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road. Accordingly, the respondents declined to make any supplementary Award in respect of the lands of
the petitioners, on the alleged ground that the District Collector, Siaha District was competent to issue an Award, only for the 00 Km - 20 Kms. of the
Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road and not beyond 20 Kms.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that in respect of the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road, the State respondents had issued a Notification
under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 only for a distance of 00 Km - 20 Kms. Accordingly, Award no. 3/2013 had been issued under Section 11 of
the L.A. Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to landowners having land between the 00 Km - 20 Kms stretch of the road. However, though the
road constructed by the BRTF has passed through the lands of the petitioners, the State respondents have not taken any steps for acquisition of their
lands and made any Award in respect of the petitioners’ lands, which are beyond 20 Kms., only on the ground that the Deputy
Commissioner/District Collector, Siaha was not competent to issue an Award beyond 20 Kms. of the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road. The
petitioner’s counsel submits that as the respondents have constructed a road over the petitioners’ lands, the petitioners have to be given
compensation for the said lands under the applicable land acquisition law and Article 300A of the Constitution.
Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not have any objection, if a joint verification is done regarding the
genuineness of the petitioners claim that a road had been constructed through their lands and if it is found that a road is constructed through their
lands, the normal procedure for acquisition of the damaged portion of their lands, on which the road is constructed, may be initiated by the State
respondents.
Ms. Mary L.Khiangte, learned counsel for the State Government, submits that the Government of Mizoram has published a Notification for
acquisition of land for the stretch of Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road from 20 Kms. - 66.69 Kms. under the Mizoram Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2016 vide Notification No. K.12011/50/13-REV/216 dated 17.05.2017. She submits that if the road constructed by
the BRTF runs through the lands of the petitioners, the respondent No. 5 is committed to initiate acquisition proceedings for this stretch of road, after
verification of the validity of the petitioners’ passes and spot verification of their lands are again done.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The basic question to be determined is whether the road constructed by the BRTF, i.e., the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road, passes though the
lands of the petitioners and if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to be paid compensation for the same. This Court had earlier passed Order dated
22.09.2016 in WP(C) No. 160/2016 and Judgment & Order dated 08.12.2016 in WP(C) No. 224/2016 directing the respondents to make a spot
verification of the petitioners lands and verify whether the road was constructed over the lands of the petitioners. The validity of the petitioners’
lands passes were also to be looked into.
The joint verification reports dated 20.12.2016 and 07.02.2017 made in pursuance to the above two orders of this Court show that the lands of the
petitioners are located allegedly between 20 Kms -30 Kms. of the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road.
As per Article 300A of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, i.e., as per the land acquisition act
applicable. Just because the petitioners lands do not lie between 00 Km - 20 Kms. does not mean that the petitioners are not entitled to payment of
any compensation, if the road actually runs through their lands. Accordingly, in view of the above reasons, the respondents are directed to constitute a
fresh verification team, who shall conduct a spot verification of the lands of the petitioners and verify whether the Kawlchaw-Phura-Tongkolong road
constructed by the BRTF runs through their lands. If it is found that the road runs through the lands of the petitioners, the State respondents shall
initiate land acquisition proceedings for the portion of lands, which they intend to acquire. Though the State Government have initiated acquisition
proceedings under the Mizoram Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2016, the same cannot be applied to the present case, in view of
the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 20/2014 and WP(C) No. 30/2014, wherein this Court has held that the Mizoram Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2016 is not applicable in the State of Mizoram and that acquisition of land will have to be made, as per
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents are reminded of the
fact that they cannot deny compensation to the petitioners only on the ground that their lands do not fall within 00 Km - 20 Kms. As long as the road
constructed by the BRTF runs through the lands of petitioners, even if it is beyond 20 km, compensation for acquisition of the portion or whole of the
affected land will have to be paid by the respondents by following the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. In the event, the respondents want to vacate the lands of petitioners, assuming the road has
been built upon it, the respondents will have to pay for damages caused to the land. Either way, the question of payment for compensation for
acquisition or damages will have to be decided by the respondents as it will be subject to the spot verification to be conducted, to ascertain whether the
road runs through the petitioners lands.
The verification team to be constituted will consist of representatives of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, BRTF, Revenue Department,
MADC and the petitioners. The verification team shall be headed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Siaha. The entire exercise, from
spot verification till completion of acquisition proceedings or payment for damages caused to the land shall be concluded within a period of 6 (six)
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.