Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 148 (GAU)

P. C. Thaemawia & Ors. v. State of Mizoram & Ors.

2014-02-05

L.S.JAMIR

body2014
L.S. Jamir, J. -- Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the land owners located at Chanmari Veng, Lawngtlai-IV, Mizoram covered by Land Settlement Certificate. The Government of Mizoram proposed for construction of a new two lane highways from NH 54 near Lawngtlai to Indo-Myanmar Border in Mizoram to support Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Transport Project in Phase-A of SARDP-NE. The respondent No. 2 issued a notification dated 20.8.2008 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that the land stretching from Lawngtlai upto Myanmar border measuring about 109 kms was likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Pursuant to the notification dated 20.8.2008, verification was conducted and compensation statement was made regarding the amount of compensation payable to the land owners who were likely to be affected. The name of the petitioners also figured in the said statement. On the basis of the spot verification and compensation statement, the respondents prepared the project report and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India for obtaining administrative approval and financial sanction. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India by a letter dated 21.12.2009 conveyed administrative approval alongwith technical and financial sanction of the President amounting to Rs. 27,39,00,000/- which was inclusive of Rs. 11,30,82,810/- towards compensation for lands, buildings, standing crops etc. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 made two Awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the aforesaid project. However, the petitioners were not included in the said two Awards although, they were included in the project report which was forwarded to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India. After pronouncing two Awards, the respondents have already disbursed the compensation amount to the land owners but the petitioners have not been given compensation till date. The petitioners, therefore, filed a legal notice through their counsel to the respondent No. 6 on 17.7.2003. However, that has also not been responded till today. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 3. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The petitioners, therefore, filed a legal notice through their counsel to the respondent No. 6 on 17.7.2003. However, that has also not been responded till today. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 3. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the fund for compensation was given by the Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Guwahati against the bill presented by the District Collector, Lawngtlai (respondent No. 6). The two Awards were made by the District Collector, Lawngtlai for lands/buildings which were actually affected by the construction of the Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Transport Project. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioners were not included in the Award made by the District Collector, Lawngtlai on the ground that their lands/buildings were not affected by the construction/project. This has been vehemently objected by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4. On consideration of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the other materials available on record, this Court without entering into the merit, is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate if a spot verification is directed to be taken by the respondents inasmuch as this Court sitting as a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not in a position to adjudicate the claims and counter claims of the respective parties. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that a spot verification be conducted by the respondents wherein the respondent No. 6 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lawngtlai District shall be the Co-Ordinating authority. The said Committee shall also consist of representatives from the Public Work Department, Revenue Department, Lai Autonomous District Council and land owners. Such spot verification should be conducted and completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order of this Court by the respondent No. 6 i.e. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai. 6. After completion of the spot verification, the respondent No. 6 thereafter shall make appropriate order(s)/report and thereafter if it is seen that the lands/buildings of the petitioners are being affected by the said project, the respondents shall take steps for compensation in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.