Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1437 (GAU)

R. Lalthanzuava v. Union of India

2017-11-15

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2017
ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The present 2 (two) writ petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment & Order as the subject-matter in issue is the same. The present controversy pertains to which law is to be applied for acquisition of land in the State of Mizoram. Whether land is to be acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the "New L.A. Act, 2013") or the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Resettlement & Rehabilitation) Act, 2016 (herein after referred to as the "Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016"). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners are the landowners of lands located in Lunglawn area of Lunglei District which have been occupied by the security forces of the Union of India since 1966 without acquiring the same. Presently, these lands are under occupation of the Assam Rifles. The petitioners have, thus, been denied any access to their said private lands, thereby denying them the right to enjoy and use their own lands. In such a situation, the petitioners and some others had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by way of WP(C) Nos. 41/2011 and 53/2011, praying for directions to be issued to the respondent authorities to either give the petitioners vacant possession of their said lands or to acquire them. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide Judgments and Orders, dated 26/04/2012, directing initiation of land acquisition proceedings in respect of the occupied lands by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of 3 months and to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. 3. In pursuance to the said judgments and orders dated 26/04/2012 passed in WP(C) Nos. 41/2011 and 53/2011, notification dated 05/07/2012 was issued by the Government of Mizoram under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'L.A. Act, 1894' in short) for acquiring the petitioners' land, to establish an Assam Rifles Battalion Key Location Plan. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was also made. 41/2011 and 53/2011, notification dated 05/07/2012 was issued by the Government of Mizoram under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'L.A. Act, 1894' in short) for acquiring the petitioners' land, to establish an Assam Rifles Battalion Key Location Plan. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was also made. The petitioners had agreed to the acquisition of their lands indicated in the notification dated 05/07/2012. However, after issuance of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894, the proceedings for acquisition of the lands did not move forward and no Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made. 4. In the meantime the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New L.A. Act, 2013' in short) came into force from 01/01/2014. By virtue of Section 24(1) of which the New L.A. Act, 2013, the earlier proceedings under the L.A. Act, 1894 were to continue under the New L.A. Act, 2013 and the compensation was to be determined and the Award made under the provisions of the New L.A. Act, 2013 as no Award under Section 11 of L.A. Act, 1894 had been made. 5. The respondents however, did not process the acquisition proceedings in relation to the petitioners' lands without giving any reasons for the same. The petitioners being aggrieved have accordingly filed the present petition. During the proceedings of this case, the State of Mizoram promulgated the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Resettlement & Rehabilitation) Ordinance on 08.12.2015 and the same was notified in the Mizoram Gazette dated 17.12.2015. Subsequently, the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Resettlement & Rehabilitation) Act, 2016 was promulgated and the same came into force on 01.01.2014. The object of the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 was to ensure that the land owners and family of the acquired lands are provided just and fair compensation, besides resettlement and rehabilitated, if warranted as per the provisions of the New L.A. Act, 2013. 6. Mr. P.D. Nair, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the New I.A. Act, 2013, is an amending Act of the L.A. Act, 1894. 6. Mr. P.D. Nair, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the New I.A. Act, 2013, is an amending Act of the L.A. Act, 1894. He submits that the New L.A. Act, 2013 having come into force on 1.1.2014, the petitioners lands have to be acquired and the Award made under section 24 the New L.A. Act, 2013, in view of the fact that no Award has been made as per Section 11 of the L.A. Act, 1894. 7. The petitioners counsel submits that in view of a specific entry being made for acquisition of land under Entry 42 of List 3 of the 7th Schedule, the Central Government and the State Government have the legislative competence to make laws for acquisition of land. However, the law made by the State Government cannot be less beneficial than the New L.A. Act, 2013. He also submits that the Mizoram I.A Act, 2006 cannot be made applicable to the State of Mizoram as the same has not received the assent of the President. 8. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram submits that the New LA Act, 2013 is not applicable to the State of Mizoram inasmuch as, it has not passed the test laid down in Article 371-G of the Constitution. The learned Government Advocate submits that clause (4) of Article 371-G does not allow an Act of Parliament, made with respect to transfer and ownership of land, to be automatically applicable to the State of Mizoram, unless the said Act of Parliament is passed by the State Assembly. 9. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the power of Parliament to make a law with regard to land matters for the State of Mizoram is fettered by Article 371-G. She submits that as acquisition of land falls within "transfer and ownership of land" under Article 371-G the New L.A. Act, 2013, which is a law made by Parliament for acquisition of land, the same is inapplicable in the State of Mizoram. 10. The learned Government Advocate also submits that acquisition is a part and parcel of transfer and ownership of land, which is protected by Article 371-G of the Constitution and as such, the State Government is competent to make the Mizoram I.A Act, 2016. 11. Ms. 10. The learned Government Advocate also submits that acquisition is a part and parcel of transfer and ownership of land, which is protected by Article 371-G of the Constitution and as such, the State Government is competent to make the Mizoram I.A Act, 2016. 11. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC submits that the Union of India does not have any comments to make in this case and that they would abide by the orders of this Court. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 13. Section 1 (2) of the New I.A Act, 2013, which repealed the L.A. Act, 1894, came into force on 01.01.2014 mandates as follows:- "It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir". Thus, it is clear that the New L.A. Act of 2013 has been consciously extended to the State of Mizoram and the State of Mizoram has not made a challenge to Section 1 (2) of the New L.A. Act, 2013 till date. Entry 42 of List-III of the 7th Schedule also provides that the Parliament and the State Legislature are competent to promulgate laws regarding requisition of land. Thus, in view of Article 254 of the Constitution, this Court has to see whether the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 overrides the New L.A. Act, 2013 for acquisition of land in the State of Mizoram. 14. The Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 came into force on 06.05.2016, when the same was published in the Mizoram Gazette. 15. Section 107 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 states as follows : "107. Power of State Legislatures to enact any law more beneficial to affected families.-- Nothing in this Act shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under this Act or make provisions for rehabilitation an resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under this Act". 16. A perusal of the above provision shows that States are empowered to enact laws for acquiring lands which are more beneficial than the New L.A. Act, 2013. 16. A perusal of the above provision shows that States are empowered to enact laws for acquiring lands which are more beneficial than the New L.A. Act, 2013. A reading of Section 108 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 shows that option has been given to the land holders and their family members to opt for higher compensation, more beneficial rehabilitation and resettlement, if there exist any State law providing for better compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement than the New L.A. Act, 2013. 17. Thus, a reading of Sections 107 and 108 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 provides that the State Government may enact any law more beneficial than the New L.A. Act, 2013 in respect of acquisition of lands and that the effected land holders and their families can opt for being given compensation and benefits under the New L.A. Act, 2013 or the more beneficial provisions given under a State Act on the same subject. Also, the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 has not received the assent of the President. 18. The question that has to be decided by this Court is whether there is any conflict between the Mizoram L.A. Act of 2016 and the New L.A. Act of 2013 and whether the Mizoram L.A. Act of 2016 received the assent of the President, as required under Article 254 of the Constitution. A perusal of the Mizoram Act of 2016 and the New L.A. Act of 2013 shows that the Mizoram L.A. Act of 2016 is less beneficial and thus, some of its provisions are repugnant to some of the provisions of the New L.A. Act of 2013. The differences between the two Acts are listed below : (i) Section 26 of the New L.A. Act 2013 provides for determination of market value of land by the Collector. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 lays down that the market value calculated as per sub-section (1) of Section 26 shall be multiplied by a factor specified in the First Schedule. The First Schedule to the L.A. Act 2013, in Serial Nos. 2 and 3 thereof, specifies the said factors to range from 1.00 to 2.00. There is no such multiplication factor in respect of the market value determined under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 26 of Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. The First Schedule to the L.A. Act 2013, in Serial Nos. 2 and 3 thereof, specifies the said factors to range from 1.00 to 2.00. There is no such multiplication factor in respect of the market value determined under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 26 of Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. Therefore, the compensation that can be awarded under the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016 is less than the compensation awardable under the New L.A. Act 2013. Thus, the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016 provides for payment of lesser compensation than that payable under the L.A. Act 2013 and, as such, it is less beneficial and repugnant to the New L.A. Act 2013. (ii) There is no provision for remittance to the Government of any percentage of the value of land acquired, as cess on value of land while considering the parameters by the Collector for determination of the Award under Section 28 of the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2013. On the other hand the second proviso to Section 28 of the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 provides that a certain percentage of the value of land acquired is to be mandatorily remitted to the Revenue Department as cess on value of land while considering the parameters by the Collector for determination of the Award. This is so despite the incorporation of Section 92 in the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 (with similar provision in Section 96 of the L.A. Act, 2013) which exempts the award or agreement made under the said Act to be exempt from Income Tax and Stamp Duty. Therefore, the quantum of compensation payable to the affected persons is further reduced under the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016. (iii) Section 30 (1) of the New L.A. Act 2013 directs as follows : "The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a "Solatium" amount equivalent to one hundred per cent, of the compensation amount. (iii) Section 30 (1) of the New L.A. Act 2013 directs as follows : "The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a "Solatium" amount equivalent to one hundred per cent, of the compensation amount. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired." Further, the New L.A. Act 2013 in its First Schedule at Serial No. 5 thereof lays down that the Solatium is to be computed as equivalent to one hundred per cent, of the market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against Serial No. 2 for rural areas or Serial No. 3 for urban areas plus the value of assets attached to land or building against Serial No. 4. On the other hand, Section 30 (1) of the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016 reads as follows-- "The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, may, to arrive at the final award, impose "Solatium" as prescribed in Schedule I, of the compensation amount. Explanation - In the context of Mizoram, land is allotted to individuals free of cost by the Government or competent authority. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount may be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired compulsorily. Land acquired on the offer made voluntarily by the land holder or through private negotiation shall not carry any solatium" A reading of First Schedule to the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016 reveals that the Solatium may range from 100% of the market value of land and value of assets attached to land or building to no Solatium at all, at the discretion of the Collector. (iv) Section 31 of the New L.A. Act 2013 provides for rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of the entitlements provided in the Second Schedule thereto. Similar provision is made in Section 31 of the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. However, a perusal of the Second Schedules of both the Acts and their comparison reveals that the elements of 'Land for Land', 'Offer for Development Land' and 'Fishing rights' provided for in the Second Schedule to the New L.A. Act 2013 are not there in the Second Schedule to the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. However, a perusal of the Second Schedules of both the Acts and their comparison reveals that the elements of 'Land for Land', 'Offer for Development Land' and 'Fishing rights' provided for in the Second Schedule to the New L.A. Act 2013 are not there in the Second Schedule to the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. (v) Section 32 of the New L.A. Act 2013 lays down that the Collector has to mandatorily ensure that the provision of all infrastructural facilities and basic minimum amenities as specified in the Third Schedule has to be there in every re-settlement area. On the other hand, there is no such specification made in the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016 and there is no Schedule therein corresponding to the Third Schedule of the New L.A. Act 2013. Thus, the infrastructural facilities and basic minimum amenities in resettlement areas has not been specifically mentioned in the Mizoram L.A. Act 2016. 19. A perusal of the preceding paragraph shows that the Mizoram Act of 2016 provides for payment of lesser compensation and benefits and is thus repugnant to the New L.A. Act of 2013. 20. Article 254 of the Constitution states as follows:-- "254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.-- (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State : Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying of repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State". 21. In the case of Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2002 (8) SCC 182 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3404 ), the Apex Court has held at Paras 13, 14 & 16 as follows : "13. Hence, it can be stated that for the State law to prevail, the following requirements must be satisfied: (1) law made by the legislature of a State should be with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List; (2) it contains any provision repugnant to the provision of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter; (3) the law so made by the legislature of the State has been reserved for the consideration of the President; and (4) it has received "his assent". 14. In view of the aforesaid requirements, before obtaining the assent of the President, the State Government has to point out that the law made by the State Legislature is in respect of one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List by mentioning Entry/Entries of the Concurrent List and that it contains provision or provisions repugnant to the law made by Parliament or existing law. Further, the words "reserved for consideration" would definitely indicate that there should be active application of mind by the President to the repugnancy pointed out between the proposed State law and the earlier law made by Parliament and the necessity of having such a law, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, which is repugnant to a law enacted by Parliament prevailing in a State. The word "consideration" would manifest that after careful thinking over and due application of mind regarding the necessity of having State law which is repugnant to the law made by Parliament, the President may grant assent. This aspect is further reaffirmed by use of the word "assent" in clause (2), which implies knowledge of the President to the repugnancy between the State law and the earlier law made by Parliament on the same subject-matter and the reasons for grant of such assent. The word "assent" would mean in the context as an expressed agreement of mind to what is proposed by the State. 16. Applying the aforesaid meaning of the word "assent" and from the phraseology used in clause (2), the object of Article 254 (2) appears that even though the law made by Parliament would have supremacy, after considering the situation prevailing in the State and after considering the repugnancy between the State legislation and the earlier law made by Parliament, the President may give his assent to the law made by the State Legislature. This would require application of mind to both the laws and the repugnancy as well as the peculiar requirement of the State to have such a law, which is repugnant to the law made by Parliament. The word "assent" is used purposefully indicating affirmative action of the proposal made by the State for having law repugnant to the earlier law made by Parliament. It would amount to accepting or conceding and concurring to the demand made by the State for such law. This cannot be done without consideration of the relevant material. Hence, the phrase used is "reserved for consideration", which under the Constitution cannot be an idle formality but would require serious consideration on the material placed before the President. The "consideration" could only be to the proposal made by the State". 22. A perusal of Article 254 of the Constitution shows that when there is inconsistency between laws made by the Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of a State, the provision of law made by the Legislature of a State which is repugnant to any provision of law made by a Parliament shall be void to the extent of its repugnancy. However, if the President has been made aware of the repugnancy between the State law and the Central law and after considering the same, the President of India has given his assent to the State law, then the law made by the Legislature of a State would prevail in the State. In the present case, the State Government knowing full well that there was repugnancy between the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 and the New L.A. Act, 2013 has not sent the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 to the President for his assent. The RTI reply dated 09.09.2016 given by the SPIO and Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department states that the Mizoram Act of 2016 was neither sent to the President of India for his consideration nor did it receive his assent. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the Mizoram Act, is not applicable for the purpose of acquiring land in the State of Mizoram vis-à-vis the New L.A. Act, 2013. 23. With regard to the contention made by the Counsel for the State Government that the New L.A. Act, 2013 cannot be made applicable to the State of Mizoram as the State Legislature has not adopted the said Act in view of Article 371-G of the Constitution, this Court, on reading Entry 42 of the Concurrent List vis-à-vis Entry 6 of the Concurrent List and Entry 18 of the State list of the 7th Schedule, finds that there is no bar imposed on the application of the New L.A. Act, 2013 by Article 371-G of the Constitution. 24. Article 371-G of the Constitution is reproduced below: "371-G. Special provision with respect to the State of Mizoram. 24. Article 371-G of the Constitution is reproduced below: "371-G. Special provision with respect to the State of Mizoram. Notwithstanding in this Constitution, (a) no Act of Parliament in respect of (i) religious or social practices of the Mizos, (ii) Mizo customary law and procedure, (iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Mizo customary law, (iv) ownership and transfer of land, shall apply to the State of Mizoram unless the Legislative Assembly shall apply to the State of Mizoram unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by a resolution so decides: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any Central Act in force in the Union Territory of Mizoram immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Fifty-third Amendment) Act, 1986; (b) the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram shall consist of not less than forty members". This Court finds that the purpose/object of Article 371-G is not related with acquisition. Clause 4 of Article 371-G has been inserted mainly to protect the rights of the natives of the State of Mizoram. The rules laid down in the Hayden's case has to be read into Article 371-G and the question of mischief does not arise in the case of acquisition of lands. The lands to be acquired are for the Central Government and as such, the doctrine of Eminent Domain comes into play in the present case. No doubt, acquisition of land implies the acquiring of the title to the land. However, ownership and transfer of land which is protected by Article 371-G is not relatable to acquisition of land for a public purpose. Article 371-G is relatable to transfer of land, not acquisition. We have to understand that transfer of land in the normal course involves payment of consideration, while in acquisition proceedings, there is payment of compensation. Article 371-G of the Constitution does not give any protection to the earlier customary rights and interests of the Mizo chiefs over ownership of land in the State of Mizoram after promulgation of the Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief's Rights) Act, 1954. Thus, the land in the State of Mizoram (erstwhile Mizo district Council of Assam) vested with the State after the promulgation of the above Act. The land laws made thereafter by the Mizo District Council was to safeguard the land for the natives of the State. Thus, the land in the State of Mizoram (erstwhile Mizo district Council of Assam) vested with the State after the promulgation of the above Act. The land laws made thereafter by the Mizo District Council was to safeguard the land for the natives of the State. Also, it may again be reiterated that Section 1 (2) of the New I.A. Act, 2013 extends the said Act to the State of Mizoram. 25. Entry 18 of List-II and Entries 6 and 42 of List-Hi of the 7th Schedule are reproduced below : Entry 18 of List-II "18. Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization". Entry 6 of List-III "6. Transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents". Entry 42 of List-III "42. Acquisition and requisitioning of property". 26. In the case of Union of India v. SGD, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 228 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3675 ), the Apex Court has held at Para 7 as follows : "7. It is further a well-settled principle that entries in the different lists should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any of them. Power of Parliament as well as the State Legislature are expressed in precise and definite terms. While an entry is to be given its widest meaning but it cannot be so interpreted as to override another entry or make another entry meaningless and in case of an apparent conflict between different entries, it is the duty of the Court to reconcile them. When it appears to the Court that there is apparent overlapping between the two entries the doctrine of "pith and substance" has to be applied to find out the true nature of a legislation and the entry within which it would fall. In case of conflict between entries in List I and List II, the same has to be decided by application of the principle of "pith and substance". The doctrine of "pith and substance" means that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature which enacted it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. The doctrine of "pith and substance" means that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature which enacted it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. When a law is impugned as being ultra vires of the legislative competence, what is required to be ascertained is the true character of the legislation. If on such an examination it is found that the legislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to the legislature then it must be held to be valid in its entirety even though it might incidentally trench on matters which are beyond its competence. In order to examine the true character of the enactment, the entire Act, its object, scope and effect, is required to be gone into. The question of invasion into the territory of another legislation is to be determined not by degree but by substance. The doctrine of "pith and substance" has to be applied not only in cases of conflict between the powers of true legislatures but in any case where the question arises whether a legislation is covered by particular legislative power in exercise of which it is purported to be made". 27. A reading of Entry 18 of List-II does not specifically mention the word "Acquisition" while Entry 42 of List-IH specifically mentions acquisition. A perusal of Entry 18 of List-II also does not give any indication that acquisition of land is involved in the State list. 28. In the case of Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in 1989 (4) SCC 650 : ( AIR 1990 SC 761 ), the Apex Court has held at Para 4 as follows : "4. The legislative Entry for acquisition and requisitioning of property is 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule. Previously, Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II of the Seventh Schedule dealt with acquisition and requisitioning in the respective fields. But by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution in 1956 those two Entries from Lists I and II were omitted and Entry 42 in the Concurrent List was inserted. The Amending Act of 1984 has been made in exercise of legislative power vested in the Centre by Entry 42 in the Concurrent List. But by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution in 1956 those two Entries from Lists I and II were omitted and Entry 42 in the Concurrent List was inserted. The Amending Act of 1984 has been made in exercise of legislative power vested in the Centre by Entry 42 in the Concurrent List. There was a State Act in Kerala known as the Kerala Land Acquisition Act of 1961 which dealt with acquisition and that had been legislated on the basis of the same Entry 42. Under the Amending Act of 1984, the Land Acquisition Act of 1984 was substantially amended. Five new provisions were inserted; twenty-one sections were substantially altered; one section was substituted and another was omitted. The Act of 1984 extended the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to the whole of India excepting the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The provisions were substantially different from the provisions in the Kerala Act. In view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was extended to the whole of India excepting one State, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 became applicable to the State of Kerala and in view of the repugnant provisions, in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution the Kerala Act stood repealed. There is no provision made in the Amending Act to indicate repeal of the State law but application of Article 254 is automatic to situations where it is applicable and by the operation of the Article the State Act stood repealed and the Central Act became applicable". The Apex Court has held in the case of MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, reported in 2013 (1) SCC 177 : (2013 AIR SCW 597) that it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the Legislature. A perusal of Entry 18 of List-II, Entry 6 of List-III and Entry 42 of List-III of the 7th Schedule clearly shows that acquisition has been specifically mentioned in Entry 42 of List-Hi of the 7th Schedule and the same is not mentioned in Entry 18 of List-II or Entry 6 of List-III, though the two entries also relate to land. Thus, the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 was required to pass the test provided in Article 254 of the Constitution to be applicable in the State, which it has failed to do. 29. In the present case, acquisition of land is for the State and the acquisition is done by the State also. Section 104 (1) of the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 has repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Legislature of a State does not have the power to repeal a Central Act and no reason has been given by the State Government with regard to the basis, by which a Central Act has been repealed by the State Legislature. The actions of the State Legislature is beyond its competence and not in conformity with law. Further, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had already been repealed vide Section 114 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014. 30. The New L.A. Act, 2013 repealed the L.A. Act, 1894 and as the New L.A. Act, 2013 is an amending Act, the New L.A. Act, 2013 would have to be applied to the State of Mizoram as the repealed L.A. Act, 1894 was applicable to the State of Mizoram. In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 30 : ( AIR 1988 SC 740 ), the Apex Court has held at Paras 17 & 18 as follows : "17. It is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an amending law, that an existing provision shall be deleted and a new provision substituted. Such deletion has the effect of repeal of the existing provision. Such a law may also provide for the introduction of a new provision. There is no real distinction between 'repeal' and an 'amendment'. In Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol.1 at p.477, the learned author makes the following statement of law : The distinction between repeal and amendment as these terms are used by the courts, is arbitrary. Naturally the use of these terms by the court is based largely on how the legislatures have developed and applied these terms in labelling their enactments. Naturally the use of these terms by the court is based largely on how the legislatures have developed and applied these terms in labelling their enactments. When a section is being added to an Act or a provision added to a section, the legislatures commonly entitle the Act as an amendment.......When a provision is withdrawn from a section, the legislatures call the Act an amendment, particularly when a provision is added to replace the one withdrawn. However, when an entire Act or section is abrogated and no new section is added to replace it, legislatures label the Act accomplishing this result a repeal. Thus as used by the legislatures, amendment and repeal may differ in kind------addition as opposed to withdrawal or only in degree------abrogation of part of a section as opposed to abrogation of a whole section or Act; or more commonly, in both kind and degree --addition of a provision to a section to replace a provision being abrogated as opposed by abrogation of a whole section of an Act. This arbitrary distinction has been followed by the courts, and they have developed separate rules of construction for each. However, they have recognized that frequently an Act purporting to be an amendment has the same qualitative effect as a repeal -- the abrogation of an existing statutory provision --and have therefore applied the term 'implied repeal' and the rules of construction applicable to repeals to such amendments. 18. Amendment is, in fact, a wider term and it includes abrogation or deletion of a provision in an existing statute. If the amendment of an existing law is small, the Act professes to amend; if it is extensive, it repeals a law and re-enacts it. An amendment of substantive law is not retrospective unless expressly laid down or by necessary implication inferred". By applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram Sharma ( AIR 1988 SC 740 ) (supra), it cannot be said that the New L.A. Act, 2013 is not applicable in the State of Mizoram, as the same is an amending Act of the repealed L.A. Act, 1894. Besides the above, this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 04.09.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 107/2015 (Sh. Lallawma v. District Collector), this Court had directed that land should be acquired as per the New L.A. Act, 2013. 31. Besides the above, this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 04.09.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 107/2015 (Sh. Lallawma v. District Collector), this Court had directed that land should be acquired as per the New L.A. Act, 2013. 31. In view of the reasons stated above and by way of reading down the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 vis-à-vis the New L.A. Act, 2013, this Court finds that some provisions of the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016, regarding payment of compensation and solatium, etc., are less beneficial/repugnant to the provisions of the New L.A. Act, 2013. Further, the New L.A. Act, 2016 has not received the assent of the President. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the Mizoram L.A. Act, 2016 is not applicable in the State of Mizoram. Consequently, the compensation to be paid to the petitioners will have to be made as per the New L.A. Act, 2013. 32. Section 24 of the New L.A. Act, 2013 states as follows: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repeated. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act : Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act". 33. In view of the fact that no Award under the L.A. Act, 1894 had been published by the respondents and as the physical possession of the land is still with the respondents, and keeping in view Section 24 of the New L.A. Act, 2013, the District Collector, Lunglei and the State Government respondents are directed to complete the acquisition proceeding of the petitioners lands as per the New L.A. Act, 2013 within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the Union of India are thereafter directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a further period of 3 (three) months in the Office of the District Collector, Lunglei, who shall disburse the same to the land owners. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.