Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 85 (GAU)

Peren Village Council v. State of Nagaland

2015-01-29

NISHITENDU CHAUDHURY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. 1. Admitted facts involved in this writ petition is that there was a Memorandum of Settlement between the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland on one hand and the Peren Village Council on the other hand on 22.09.2005 for formation and establishment of Peren Committee Ki (Zeliang Head Quarter) and up-gradation of Peren Town to a Sub-Divisional Headquarter of Zeliang area which was subsequently upgraded to that of a full-fledged Revenue District. On the basis of the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties, a formal agreement was later on executed on 30.10.2009 by and between the Government of Nagaland on one side and the three Village Council Chairman, namely, the Chairman of Peren Village Council, the Chairman of New Peren Village Council and the Chairman of Kezanglwa Village Council on the other side. It was agreed upon by and between the parties that 3715.18 acres of land belonging to these three villages would be purchased by the Government of Nagaland for establishment of Peren District Headquarters for Model Township and the aforesaid three vendors would be compensated by paying them for the area sold by each of them at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The parties also agreed that all of them would adhere to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the land owner villages and Commissioner, Nagaland on 03.07.2006. The terms and conditions of the agreement are quoted below:- 1) That, all the partners shall adhere to the Memorandum of Understanding, signed between land owner villages and Commissioner, Nagaland on 3rd July, 2006. 2) That, the Purchaser shall pay Land compensation for 2500 Acres of land amounting to Rs. 6,25,00,000/- (Rupees six crores twenty five lakhs) only to the Vendors as the first installment of payment on ................. to which the vendors agrees. 3) That, the Purchaser shall pay the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 30379500/- (Rupees Three Crores three lakhs seventy nine thousand and five hundred) only for the remaining 1215.18 Acres out of which 510.62 acres belonging, to Kezanglwa will be cleared in the second installment on or before 31st March 2010 to the Vendors. to which the vendors agrees. 3) That, the Purchaser shall pay the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 30379500/- (Rupees Three Crores three lakhs seventy nine thousand and five hundred) only for the remaining 1215.18 Acres out of which 510.62 acres belonging, to Kezanglwa will be cleared in the second installment on or before 31st March 2010 to the Vendors. 4) That, failure on the part of the Purchaser to pay the second installment on or before 31st March 2010 the purchaser shall pay the compensation at the present prevailing rate of Government of Nagaland to the land owner for the remaining acres of land i.e., 1215.18 acres to the vendors but in no case shall delay the payment beyond 2010-11 financial year. 5) That, in case the purchaser fails to pay the second installment within the 2010-2011 financial year the vendors shall have the right to claim interest on the amount of second installment as per Nagaland Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1965 or the rate of interest as laid down by RBI. 6) That, the valuable standing trees planted by individual/group should be cleared as required by the Government and if he/she foiled to comply with directive, the Government shall have liberty to clear/felt the trees and the owner can collect within specified period which shall be determined by Deputy Commissioner, Peren and the expenditure involved on felling trees will be borne by the owner of the trees. 7) That, both the parties have agreed to demarcate 20 Sq. Kms of land initially for establishment of model District H.Q. with master plan within the area of Tebam Hegeilulo - New Peren - Kezanglwa which is free from all encumbrances. 8) The villagers and land owners have agreed to reserve a stretch of 1 furlong on all four sides for future expansion of the District H.Q. and no private permanent establishment will be allowed within the reserve area in question. 9) Further agreed to take full responsibilities by the 3 (three) village councils to settle disputes if any relating to individual land or unforeseen problem arising within the demarcated areas. 10) Further agreed not to claim any reservation of job/contract work as land owner quota after accepting land compensation from Government. 9) Further agreed to take full responsibilities by the 3 (three) village councils to settle disputes if any relating to individual land or unforeseen problem arising within the demarcated areas. 10) Further agreed not to claim any reservation of job/contract work as land owner quota after accepting land compensation from Government. 11) Further agreed to take responsibilities by 3 (three) village authorities to preserve and protect all the water source catchments areas and also to obtain NOC from the neighboring villages (water source owner). 12) Further agreed to allow the Government to carry out master plan of the area from any direction (North, South and East and West) within the prescribe areas even prior to payment of land compensation. 13) The land allotment to private individual/society shall be done by the Government in consultation with one representative from each land owner village i.e. Peren, New Peren & Kejanglwa and local allotment committee which shall be constituted by the District Planning Board. It transpires from the above that the cost of the total area of land measuring 3715.18 acres at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre comes to Rs. 9,28,79,500/- and the same was payable in two installments. First installment was of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- and the second installment was quantified at Rs. 3,03,79,500/-. Admitted fact is that first installment of Rs. 6,25,00,000/-, stood already paid to the villages but the second installment was yet to be completely paid. It is further disclosed that out of the aforesaid total land of 3715.18 acres, the breakup of land of each of the three villages were as follows:- i) Old Peren Village = 1150 acres ii) New Peren Village = 2049.56 acres iii) Kezanglwa Village = 510.62 acres 2. The petitioner herein is the Village Council of Old Peren Village and so their land involvement in the deal amounts to land measuring 1150 Acres. The further admitted fact is that the compensation amount for this 1150 acres of land is Rs. 2,88,75,000/- out of which Rs. 2,50,00,000/- have already been paid and the balance amount to be disbursed is to the tune of Rs. 38,75,000/-. While the Government is ready and willing to make payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioners herein refused to take the same and hence the dispute arose. 3. 2,88,75,000/- out of which Rs. 2,50,00,000/- have already been paid and the balance amount to be disbursed is to the tune of Rs. 38,75,000/-. While the Government is ready and willing to make payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioners herein refused to take the same and hence the dispute arose. 3. According to the writ petitioner, apart from the aforesaid purchased land of 1150 acres, the petitioner village had donated the whole land of the existing Peren head quarter of cost in the year 1947 on the condition that the headquarter of Zeliang area should be housed on this land and in no case it should be shifted from Peren to any other area or place. The State Government entered into MoU with the land owners on 03.07.2006 and a consequent agreement was also signed on 30.10.2009 with all the three villages for purchase of further area of land measuring 3715.18 acres at a price of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The writ petitioner contends that this land was acquired by the Government for expansion and extension of the Peren District Headquarter and not for shifting the Headquarter from its present place. The writ petitioner made sacrifices only on the condition that Zeliang headquarters should remain at Peren and should not be shifted to any other place but Peren District and Development Board in its meeting held on 29.10.2011, 28.11.2011 and 15.12.2011 adopted three minutes dated 04.10.2011, 02.11.2011 and 17.12.2011 respectively to shift the Peren District Headquarters to new site under a new name. This, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the agreement between the three villages and the Government and so the petitioner chose to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding. It is further pleased that in the event, Government chooses to shift the District Headquarter from its present place to any other place or to the proposed new area, Government should make adequate payment of compensation for the entire donated land, natural resources and supreme sacrifices made by the petitioner village for last 58 years. 4. By filing an affidavit in opposition, the State respondents have annexed not only the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 03.07.2006 but also the Deed of Agreement dated 30.10.2009. 4. By filing an affidavit in opposition, the State respondents have annexed not only the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 03.07.2006 but also the Deed of Agreement dated 30.10.2009. According to the State respondents, the purchase of 3715.18 acres of land was for establishment of Model District Headquarter with master plan within the area of Teham, Hegeilulo, New Peren, Kezanglwa which is free from any encumbrances. The same purpose is also mentioned in the agreement dated 30.10.2009 and so the three villages, namely, Old Peren Village (petitioner herein), the New Peren Village and Kezanglwa Village were very much aware that District Headquarter was going to be shifted to the new area and thus the three villages having consented to such shifting by subscribing their respective hands unto the agreement they cannot be heard to complain about breach of earlier terms and conditions of 1947. The other two villages, namely, New Peren Village and Kezanglwa village did not grudge to shifting of the District Headquarter to new place in public interest and they volunteered to receive the consideration money pursuant to agreement dated 30.10.2009 and so, their share of money has already been disbursed to these two villages. Even the petitioner village accepted Rs. 2,50,00,000/- already being price of the land of their share and only a sum of Rs. 38,75,000/- is lying unpaid which the Government is ready and willing to disburse at any moment. The Government further reveals that there were previous litigations with regard to the same matter vide WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010 and WP(C) No. 208(K)/2009. While WP(C) No. 208(K)/2009 has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 13.09.2011 and petitioner of that writ petition has already been evicted from the land from 02.01.2012, the WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010 was disposed of by the Court on 14.05.2014. By that judgment, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the jurisdictional Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Peren to make necessary enquiry within the meaning of Section 11 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 as well as Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to arrive at a decision as to who are the persons interested in the land and the quantum of compensation to be paid to each of them. Pending such decision, compensation amount should not be disbursed with respect to 510.62 acres belonging to Kezanglwa village. It is stated that said proceeding before the Collector is still pending. Pending such decision, compensation amount should not be disbursed with respect to 510.62 acres belonging to Kezanglwa village. It is stated that said proceeding before the Collector is still pending. However, what is apparent from above is that Kezanglwa village has accepted the decision of shifting the Headquarter to new place and this is why they volunteered to accept their share of compensation money. The only dispute in their case was in regard to disbursement of money to the individual land owners. 5. It appears that on 20.01.2012 an interim order was passed by this Court in the present writ petition prohibiting shifting of District Headquarters from its present place by directing the parties to maintain the status quo. This order was subsequently modified in C.M.C. No. 66(K)/2012 whereby respondents herein were permitted to shift the District Headquarter in the land acquired from other two villages. Even in WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010, this Court refused to interfere with the ongoing process of construction of New District Headquarter at the chosen site. This being the factual position, it is necessary to see as to which extent does the present writ petition survive and as to which extent has it become infructuous. To understand this, let us have a look on the prayer of petition which is quoted below:- In the premises as stated above, it is the humble prayer of the petitioner that Your Lordships may kindly admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of a Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction be issued against the respondents. And after the cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the Rule absolute and: A) Quash and set aside the decision of the Peren District Planning & Development Board Meeting held on 29.10.2011 at Agenda No. 5 Vide Minutes No. DPM/PRN/16/07, dated 04.10.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, DPDB, Peren (Annexure-K to the Writ Petition); B) Quash and set aside the decision of the Peren District Planning & Development Board Meeting held on 28.11.2011 at Review No. C, Vide No. DPM/PRN/16/07, dated 02.11.2011 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Peren (Annexure-K to the Writ Petition); C) Quash and set aside the decision of the Peren District Planning & Development Board on 15.12.2011 at Review No. d and Agenda No. 1, 2 and 3 Vide No. DPM/PRN/16/07, dated 17.12.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, Peren DPDB (Annexure-L to the Writ Petition); D) Direct the respondents not to shift the Peren District Headquarter/offices situated at Peren Town to the proposed new Headquarter. E) Direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation for the land, natural resources and supreme sacrifices made for the last 58 years without any compensation in the even of shifting the Peren District Headquarter. And/or pass any other order or orders or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for the ends of justice. 6. I have heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Lotan for the petitioner and Mr. K. Sema, the learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General of Nagaland on behalf of the respondents. I have perused documents and the pleadings of the parties. 7. It would appear from above that the basic prayer made in the writ petition is directed against decision of the Peren District Planning and Development Board for shifting the District Headquarter to new place on the ground that the petitioner village had donated land free of cost to the Government in the year 1947 on the condition that the headquarter would never be shifted from the donated land. The learned senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that because of such breach committed by the official respondents, the present petitioners revoked their consent to the MoU and so prayer is made for issuing necessary direction to the respondents not to shift the Peren District Headquarters/Offices to the new place. Now, is the writ petitioner entitled to withdraw its consent from the MoU once the acceptance is communicated to the respondents? The answer is obvious. Under Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 revocation of acceptance is permissible only prior to communication of acceptance. Here in this case the parties not only agreed to the terms of contract but also completed the deal at least to some extent by making transaction of consideration money. This being the factual position, neither of the parties is permitted to revoke consent because of bar imposed under this section. So, the pleading of the writ petition in regard to withdrawal of consent does not warrant any consideration. 8. Per contra, Mr. K. Sema, learned Additional Advocate General would argue that the prayer in regard to shifting of Headquarter has become infructuous in view of the vacation of the interim order in Miscellaneous Case No. 66(K)/2012. Moreover, by the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in question, three villages agreed to sell their land to the Government not for any other purpose than establishment of new district headquarter as a Model Town. The present petitioner was also a signatory to the agreement dated 30.10.2009 which itself reveals the very purpose for purchase of the land. According to Mr. K. Sema, the petitioner also accepted the position and so they are estopped from raising any objection at this stage. Besides, revocation of consent in the MoU at this stage cannot arise, inasmuch as, substantial part of consideration has already been disbursed to the petitioner and only a sum of Rs. 38,75,000/- are lying unpaid. Moreover, in view of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010, there is no bar in making construction of District Headquarter at the new place. The infrastructure has already been made and shifting has been done, he argued. This being the position, the prayer of the writ petitioner in so far it relates to shifting of District Headquarter of Peren has become infructuous. 9. The infrastructure has already been made and shifting has been done, he argued. This being the position, the prayer of the writ petitioner in so far it relates to shifting of District Headquarter of Peren has become infructuous. 9. It is revealed from their submission made by learned senior Advocates of both sides that objection as to shifting of District Headquarter led to series of litigations and none of them succeeded to attain desired result Copy of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010 has been placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General. A perusal of the same also reveals that Government has been permitted to continue ongoing process of shifting of the District Headquarter to new place. Moreover, a Public Interest Litigation in regard to status of the present infrastructure at the new place is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the parties stated that an order was passed by this Court in the said PDL directing District Judge, Dimapur and Civil Judge, Peren to hold joint local inspection to ascertain as to whether the arrangements made by the Government at the new place headquarter is adequate for immediate shifting and the enquiry is still pending. All these developments only lead to show that decision of the Government to shift the District Headquarter to the proposed site of Model Town has attained finality and so it is too late in the day to pass any prohibitory order for circumventing the ongoing process. This may be contrary to public interest as well. Besides, shifting of administrative headquarter is a privilege of the executive which normally does not warrant interference by way of judicial review. In view of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 143(K)/2010 and in view of the pendency of the PIL, the prayer for direction to stop shifting of the headquarter, therefore, has lost its force. Once the prayers made in Clause A to D, as referred to above, become state, the only scope left for decision in this writ petition is whether writ petitioner is entitled to any compensation for alleged breach by the Government in shifting the district headquarter from its original site to the proposed site of the Model Town. In this regard, the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the recital made in agreement dated 30.10.2009 cannot be lost sight of. In this regard, the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the recital made in agreement dated 30.10.2009 cannot be lost sight of. It appears that the fact as to establishment of new district headquarter by setting up a Model Town was the basic purpose for which parties had entered into agreement on 30.10.2009. The writ petitioner could not produce a scrap of paper till date to bring on record as to existence of any such assurance by the Government that the Headquarter of Peren would never be shifted to any other place. Even if there is any such assurance then writ petitioner may be entitled to compensation for such breach in some or other form provided that it can establish the breach by leading evidence. By no chance such an exercise can be made by any writ Court. This writ petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. It is needless to say that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the writ petitioner for seeking appropriate remedy in Civil Court by establishing necessary facts in accordance with law. Dismissal of this writ petition also shall not be a bar for the writ petitioner to get the balance amount of Rs. 38,75,000/- as unpaid compensation against purchase of its 1150 acres of land. No order as to costs.