JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Chief of a village on his behalf and on behalf of his villagers seeking for a direction or order of this Court directing the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding in respect of their land occupied by Assam Rifle and also to pay compensation for the same. This case is a revelation of the story of poor and helpless tribals of a hill village whose land has been taken away for the purpose of accommodating Assam Rifles who have come to the State for helping the State Government in maintaining law & order, but not yet given their rightful compensation for the land which they were made to part with. Heard Ms. Bisheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG, for the respondents No. 1 to 3. As for the respondents No. 4 and 5, none appears on their behalf today. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : The petitioner is the Chief of the village namely Khoirupok Village in Ukhrul District, Manipur which nomenclature has now been changed to Lungtoram Village vide Government of Manipur order No. 9/13/2005-CHA dated 27.09.2005. The petitioner and his villagers have continued to live in the village since the time of their forefathers. The fact that, they have been living in the village is supported by the Hill House Tax Receipts of the year 1941, 1976 and 2008, copy of which are filed in the writ petition. In the month of March, 2004 personnel of 34th Assam Rifles came to the village and started occupying a portion of the village including their playground altogether measuring about 12 (twelve) acres without the land being acquired as per law of the land. Since then, the Assam Rifles have continued to occupy the land of the villagers. The petitioner and his villagers submitted a series of representations to the respondents asking for compensation. But the respondents did not pay their compensation. Therefore, through their learned counsel, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.11.2008 to all the respondents. Since then, the Assam Rifles have continued to occupy the land of the villagers. The petitioner and his villagers submitted a series of representations to the respondents asking for compensation. But the respondents did not pay their compensation. Therefore, through their learned counsel, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.11.2008 to all the respondents. Since no tangible action has been taken towards payment of compensation, and the petitioner and his villagers having no choice, has come to this High Court praying for a direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay the compensation to them for their land taken away by the Assam Rifles. 3. Counter affidavits were filed by all the respondents. In their joint counter affidavit respondents No. 1 to 3 did not deny the fact that the Assam Rifles have been in occupation of the land of the villagers, but objected the claim of the petitioner and his villagers for compensation on the ground that the Assam Rifles occupied the land only after a no objection certificate was issued by the village council of the petitioners’ village, therefore the petitioner and his villagers cannot now claim compensation. Secondly, they also submitted that ownership of the land claimed by the petitioner and his villagers is not establish by mere payment of hill house tax, in the absence of any other document, therefore, their entitlement for compensation for the land is doubtful. The main point of objection raised by them is that since the Assam Rifles came on the request of the State Government, it is the responsibility of the State Government to pay the compensation. Respondents No. 4 and 5 who represented the State Government unlike the respondents No. 1 to 3 did not raise any question on the ownership over the land occupied by the Assam Rifles. The only issue raised by them is that no prior information was given by the Assam Rifles before the land was occupied by them, as such, the State Government is not responsible for paying the compensation. 4. The question of ownership of the land raised by the respondents No. 1 to 3 is contrary to their submission that the Assam Rifles occupied the land only after it was gifted by the villagers. Therefore, the question of ownership over the land raised by them cannot be taken seriously. 4. The question of ownership of the land raised by the respondents No. 1 to 3 is contrary to their submission that the Assam Rifles occupied the land only after it was gifted by the villagers. Therefore, the question of ownership over the land raised by them cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, it is a fact that in the hills of Manipur, specially, in Tangkhul Naga villages, it is the villagers to whom the village land belongs to. Since the Manipur Land Revenue (MLR) Act& Rules does not extend to the hill areas, hill house tax is levied from the villagers in the hill in lieu of land revenue levied from the people in the valley under the same Act & Rules. This is the settled law of the State. In this regard the Judgment passed by the Judicial Commissioner in the case of “Luitang Khullakpa & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Manipur & Anr.” reported in AIR 1961 Manipur 31 which is relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner may be referred to. The relevant portion of the judgment is given here below : “6. This case involves a decision of the rights the villagers of the Hill villages of Manipur have with respect to the lands in their occupation in the various Hill villages. The system of land tenure in the Hill villages is in a very inchoate state. Authorities either in the form of books on the subject hill peoples are lacking. The Assam Land Revenue Manual made applicable only to the valley areas of Manipur. The only book on the subject which has been brought to my notice by the parties is “The Naga Tribes of Manipur “by T.C. Hudson, published in 1911. Even this book contains very little about the land tenure system in the hill areas. It is not necessary at this stage to deal at any great length with these questions as it will be the duty of the land Acquisition Officer to decide the rights of the villagers in the land, if I hold in this case that the petitioners herein are entitled to claim compensation for the taking over the lands by the Government. It is sufficient to say that in the above book, Mr. It is sufficient to say that in the above book, Mr. Hudson states at page 105that each village possess a well-defined area which is sometimes demarcated with boundary stones and within which the villagers possess paramount rights of hunting, of fishing if a river be included, and of development of cultivation either by making new terraces of by jhuming. It is stated further that in the case of villages which possessed terraced fields, we find a mass of customs relating to the equitable of water throughout the terraces, the highest fields getting the water first and to prevent waste to allow it to go to the lower fields. The book further states that land is held in several ownership but no alienation outside the clan was permitted. Again, at page 99 of the same book, we find it stated that a common feature of the village system was that the village area was strictly defined and occasionally delimited by artificial boundary marks within which the villagers are free to fish, if a river be in the area, to hunt, and if necessary even in the case of permanent village with terraced cultivation, to develop their cultivation by jhuming. The book states that in cases where permanent villages subsist by means of jhums, the rights of ownership are recognized in the jhums which are cultivated in a strict rotation, and several ownership in the land is common, but is limited by the condition that land may not be alienated, at any rate, outside the villages, if indeed disposal outside the clan be permitted. 7. The first attempt at codification of the system obtaining in the hill area appears to have been made by the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947. Even in the said regulation, the rights of villagers in the land have not been defined. There is no record to show the lands in the possession of the various villagers though as stated in Mr. Hudson’s book, the boundaries of hill villages are well defined. There is no systems of assessment of lands in the hill villages. Each village has got a Khullakpa Chief and certain other village officers like the Luklakpa. The Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 contains in its schedule the lists of villages in the various sub-divisions with the number of taxable houses in each village. There is no systems of assessment of lands in the hill villages. Each village has got a Khullakpa Chief and certain other village officers like the Luklakpa. The Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 contains in its schedule the lists of villages in the various sub-divisions with the number of taxable houses in each village. The present village in question, namely, the Lambui village is shown as Item No. 29 in the East Sub-Division Office Circle No. 1 of Ukhrul with 43 taxable houses. The only taxes collected from the Hill village by the Government are the house taxes from each house-holder or family at a fixed rate. The mode of collection is through the Khullakpa of each village. The Government in turn does not interfere with the employment and possession of the lands in the various villages so long as the house taxes are paid by the Khullakpas. The actual enjoyment and separate ownership and possession of the lands in the various villages among the villagers appear to be a matter of internal arrangement as between the Khullakpa and the villagers. We find from sections 60 to 64 of the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 that provision is made for settlement of dispute regarding the ownership of land or the right of cultivation over land or regarding village boundaries. This would show that ownership of land and right to cultivation are recognized in the Hill villages.” From the judgment given above, it is clear that ownership of land in the hills lies with the people i.e. the villagers. This decision of the Judicial Commissioner has been consistently followed by this Court. Recently also, in the W.P.(C) No. 374 of 2008, Shri N. Lokho and 2 (two) Others Vs. State of Manipur and 4 (four) Others, this Court by following the decision of the Judicial Commissioner had directed the State respondents to pay compensation to hill villagers for their land used for construction of road. Because of the facts and circumstances of this case and the documents like hill house tax filed by the petitioner, there is no reason as to why the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner should not be applicable in the case of the petitioner and his villagers. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioner and his villagers are indeed owners of the land occupied by the Assam Rifles. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioner and his villagers are indeed owners of the land occupied by the Assam Rifles. The judgment relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, that is the one passed in W.P.(C) No. 981 of 2004 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the petitioners could not prove their ownership over the land, therefore, the Court did not grant their prayer for compensation. 5. Moreover, it is the State Government who knows the law of the land better than anybody, therefore, when they did not raise any question on the ownership over the land occupied by the Assam Rifles there is no need of having any doubt on that point. As such, there is no need of going any further on the issue of ownership of the land occupied by Assam Rifles. Since there is no more question on the ownership of the land occupied by Assam Rifles, the petitioner and his villagers are entitled to compensation for the same. Mere giving of no objection certificate to occupy the land will not disentitle them from getting their due compensation for their land. The Government which exists for the people must not deprive land owners from getting their due compensation for the land which belongs to them but is utilized for public purpose. In other words, though private land can be acquired for public purpose, owner of the land cannot be deprived from getting his due compensation, after all, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, when the land belonging to the villagers was taken by the Assam Rifles, the State Government should have immediately proceeded with process of acquiring the same under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Having not done so, has compelled the petitioner and his villagers to approach this High Court. Ignoring the rightful claim of helpless villagers will only aggravate their grievances and sufferings which may in turn lead to erosion of their trust on the Government. The issue as to who will pay the compensation i.e. the State Government or the Central Government has to be decided between themselves (between Central Government and State Government). Shifting of responsibilities between the two Governments should not come in the way of the petitioner and his villagers getting their rightful compensation for their land. The issue as to who will pay the compensation i.e. the State Government or the Central Government has to be decided between themselves (between Central Government and State Government). Shifting of responsibilities between the two Governments should not come in the way of the petitioner and his villagers getting their rightful compensation for their land. In view of the reasons given above, the State Government represented by the respondents No. 4 & 5 shall proceed with the acquisition of the land occupied by the Assam Rifles under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 immediately and complete the same within a period of 5 (five) months. In the meanwhile, both the Central Government and the State Government should decide whether the burden of compensation should be borne by either of them or both of them. With this, the writ petition is disposed.