Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1059 (GAU)

Thangliantluanga v. State of Mizoram and Ors.

2014-12-15

L.S.JAMIR

body2014
Heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram on behalf of the State respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondents to identify the petitioner’s land covered by LSC No.AZL 1577 of 1984 or to acquire the land of the petitioner and pay compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner B.K.Thanga expired on 2.9.2014. By filing C.M.Application No.150 of 2014, the present petitioner Mr. Thangliantluanga who is the son of late B.K.Thanga had impleaded himself as the legal representative of his father. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been issued an LSC No.AZL 1577 of 1984 covering 0.26 Bigha of land by the competent authority. Further, a trace Map was also traced by the Tracer, Land Revenue and Settlement in the year 1984 showing an area of 0.26 bighas. The petitioner had earlier approached this court by way of W.P.(C) 64 of 2011 alongwith 2 (two) others praying for acquisition of their land by the Government as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court in order to ascertain the stand of the respondents, more particularly, the Public Works Department, Mizoram had by an order dated 26.9.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 64 of 2011 directed the respondents to file an additional affidavit clarifying whether they are interested to acquire the land of the petitioners or not. Consequent to the direction, the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department had filed additional affidavit in W.P.(C) No.64 of 2011 and therein at para 2 a categorical statement was made that the respondents would like to acquire the land of the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the basis of the statements made in the additional affidavit, WP.(C) No. 64 of 2011 was disposed of by an order dated 9.11.2011 directing the Public Works Department, Government of Mizoram through the Chief Engineer (Building) and the Collector, Aizawl to regularize the taking over of the lands of the petitioners by taking appropriate steps under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereafter pass the necessary awards within a period of 4 (four) months. 4. 4. Thereafter, the respondents conducted re-verification of the land of the 3 (three) writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.64 of 2011 and the Surveyor, Land and Building Branch on 30.5.2012 addressed to the Asst. Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl had submitted joint verification report of the land proposed to be acquired for construction of road at Luangmual belonging to the petitioner and 2 (two) others. Therein at para 2 of the verification report, it was observed that road construction did not damage the area of the LSC of the petitioner as his land is below the road constructed and therefore the LSC is not required to be acquired. 5. Subsequently, Award No. 11 of 2012 was drawn in favour of the other 2 (two) writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 64 of 2011. However, the name of the petitioner did not appear in Award No. 11 of 2012 in view of the report dated 30.5.2012 made by the Surveyor. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had made representations before the appropriate authorities and more particularly by representation dated 16.4.2013, the petitioner amongst others, stated that he would not make any claim if the Revenue Department can identify his land by making and putting definite boundaries pillars and if it is not encroached upon by the new road constructed by the PWD. He also stated that if the road constructed by the PWD is found to be inside his land, he should also be given compensation. It was further stated in the representation that due to the contradiction between the order dated 19.7.2011 issued by the ASO, Land Revenue & Settlement Department and the Survey report dated 30.5.2012, it was necessary that the exact location of his land covered by LSC No.AZL .1577 of 1984 should be made in order to settle the whole issue. 6. Subsequent to the representation dated 16.4.2013, another re-verification was conducted and verification report was submitted to the Assistant Director of Survey, Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl on 14.10.2013. The said verification report is reproduced here in below: “To, The Asstt Director of Survey Land Revenue & Settlement Mizoram, Aizawl. Subject : Verification of B.K. Thanga LSC No.1577/84 Boundaries line’ Ref. The said verification report is reproduced here in below: “To, The Asstt Director of Survey Land Revenue & Settlement Mizoram, Aizawl. Subject : Verification of B.K. Thanga LSC No.1577/84 Boundaries line’ Ref. S.11035/2/13-LSC/DTE (REV)/45/27/2013 Sir, As mentioned above in the office order No. I, K. Rosanga and Ramdinliana went to the site with necessary documents on 9.10.2013 to verify whether the land covered by BK Thanga’s LSC is encroached by the PWD road construction. The following persons viz. 1) Pu Zopara, SDO, Road North Div-III 2) Pu T.Lalchhandama, JE 3) Pu Lalsangzuala Sailo, SA were also present on behalf of the PWD. It is not possible to precisely locate B.K.Thanga’s LSC location in accordance with the document because the reference no longer existed. The residential plot shown by Mr. BK.Thanga is next to the drain whereas according to the LSC Map there is no trace of the drain, only vacant sites were depicted. The PWD road excavation is in accordance with the E.G.S. guidelines. However, we have been informed that the road has been made slightly higher and towards the East in order to improve the grade. So in order to determine whether the newly excavated road damage the LSC and to calculate the exact extent of damages, the other LSCs which is in the surrounding area of BK Thanga’s LSC need to be located and I hope to find out the location of BK Thanga’s LSC only after the whole field has been sorted out. Even so, it may be difficult to find out the exact boundary. It is pertinent to find out the recipients of compensation for the land in that area which was paid by the PWD. It is also important to find out the LSC of the compensation recipients and if Mr. B.K Thanga share the same boundary with that of the compensation awardees, it may be settled with the PWD. Since Mr B.K. Thanga’s LSC was given in “piece meal” the land claimed by him may be overlapped with the other LSCs. However, it will be possible to determine the location only after all the LSC documents in the field/area have been furnished by Mr. BK.Thanga and PWD. I am submitting this report for further actions. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 14/10/13 ( K. ROSANGA )” 7. However, it will be possible to determine the location only after all the LSC documents in the field/area have been furnished by Mr. BK.Thanga and PWD. I am submitting this report for further actions. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 14/10/13 ( K. ROSANGA )” 7. At this stage, it is also important to examine an earlier order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Revenue and Settlement Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl which is also quoted here in below : “OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE & SETTLEMENT AIZAWL DISTRICT : AIZAWL ORDER No. R. 21011/7/2011 DC(A) VOL-1/26: Survey was done on the land in Luangmual covered by the LSC No. AZL 1577 of 1984 owned by BK Thanga, S/o Kailiana of Ramhlun South, LSC no. 1748 of 1984 owned by Pu B.Vanlalzika and LSC No. 1513 of 1986 owned by Sangthangpuia, as they felt that a road had been constructed through their lands. It has been verified that the PWD has without their consent and knowledge constructed a road through the lands covered by their LSCs and have totally destroyed it. As the Revenue Department has nothing to do in the above matter, the matter may be brought to the notice of PWD. Sd/- LALFELA SAILO Asst. Settlement Officer Land Revenue & Settlement Aizawl District : Aizawl.” 8. Thereafter by a letter dated 13.3.2014 the Assistant Settlement Officer for Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department informed the petitioner that as he did not say anything at the time the joint verification team made a survey before the road was constructed and also because it is not certain whether his land bearing LSC No.1577 of 1984 had been damaged as per the survey report, the matter was treated as closed. Being aggrieved the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 9. From a perusal of the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl District, Aizawl, it is seen that the land of the petitioner was verified and it was found that the PWD has without their consent and knowledge constructed a road through the lands covered by their LSCs and have totally destroyed it. From a perusal of the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl District, Aizawl, it is seen that the land of the petitioner was verified and it was found that the PWD has without their consent and knowledge constructed a road through the lands covered by their LSCs and have totally destroyed it. Coming to the Joint Verification report dated 30.5.2012 it is also seen that the respondents has identified that the petitioner’s land is below the road constructed and that in view of the same, the LSC of the petitioner is not required to be acquired. 10. This court has also taken notice of the verification report dated 14.10.2013 which has already been quoted herein above. What transpires from the order dated 19.7.2011 is that the PWD has without the consent of the petitioner, constructed a road through his land and have totally destroyed it. The Joint Verification Report dated 30.5.2012 indicates that the petitioner’s land has been indentified and that his land is below the road constructed. Further, by the verification report dated 14.10.2013 it is seen that the respondents are unable to locate the petitioner’s land as the reference no longer existed. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents further indicates that the road construction did not damage and cross the petitioner’s land and his LSC and surface of the land was also different and therefore the PWD cannot pay compensation as the petitioner is not entitled for the same. Faced with the contradictions in the Order dated 19.7.2011 and the Verification Reports dated 30.5.2012 and 14.10.2013 s well as the stand taken by the petitioner and also that of the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and this Court sitting as a Writ Court is not in a position to settle the disputed questions of facts. However, it is considered that it would be in the interest of justice if a re-verification is conducted by the respondents alongwith the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, it is directed that re-verification of the petitioner’s land be conducted with the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, as the Co-ordinating authority alongwith the representatives of the Public Works Department as well as the petitioner. Such verification shall be conducted in the presence of all the parties. 11. Accordingly, it is directed that re-verification of the petitioner’s land be conducted with the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, as the Co-ordinating authority alongwith the representatives of the Public Works Department as well as the petitioner. Such verification shall be conducted in the presence of all the parties. The said re-verification shall be conducted in consultation with other neighbouring LSC’s with all support from the Land Revenue & Settlement in so far as past records/LSC’s are concerned and any other documents found necessary during such re-verification. 12. On the basis of such re-verification report, the respondents shall thereafter pass appropriate orders. If during such re-verification, the claim of the petitioner is found to be correct, the respondents shall take steps to acquire the land of the petitioner and thereafter pay compensation. Let such, re-verification be conducted within a period of 3 (three) months from today. The petitioner is given liberty to produce a certified true copy of the Order of this Court to the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if further aggrieved by any orders passed by the respondents. 13. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.