Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 49 (MAN)

Hundung Victim Development v. Union of India

2018-09-18

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
ORDER : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC for the Union respondents; and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by one David Muhung, who is the Convenor of Hundung Victim Development, of Hundung Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur. 3. Notice was issued on 11.9.15 and thereafter, the case was admitted on 27.3.17. A counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 6 on 17.12.2015; and respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 4.2.2016; and another affidavit-in-opposition was filed by respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 on 4.8.2016; thereafter, two rejoinder affidavits were filed by the petitioner on 20.3.2017 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6, and affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 1, 2, 3 & 4. On 4.9.2017, respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 filed a reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. The brief facts of this case are as follows:- 4. In Ukhrul hill District, a Mini Cement Factory was to be established, and certain extent of land was required. This project resulted in causing damage to properties of Hundung Village. In some cases, their agricultural land is affected and in some cases, the land which was adjacent to the road, was damaged, and the accusation resulted in difficulty to the village people forcing them to file the petition being Civil Rule No. 1331 of 1990/1/91 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and Vide Order dated 2.2.1993, a direction was issued to the competent authority to pass an order in respect of the land accusation. Consequently, the District Collector (Land Accusation), Ukhrul, passed an order on 30.03.1993 and made award in respect of: “1. (A) Land Value 1. (B) Approach Road to Cement Factory : Hundung 1. (C) 2 MT Magazine for Mini Cement Plant. 1. (D) Lime Story Quarry for Cement Factory. 2. Construction of Imphal - Ukhrul Road (Gref Road). (A) Construction of Imphal Ukhrul Road via Hundung was started in the year 1981 and Commissioned in 1984. Assessment of land was carried out in connection with the above referred Civil Rule to ascertained the land owners and the areas affected by this road construction. An area of 151.85 acres belonging to 76 land owners were affected. (A) Construction of Imphal Ukhrul Road via Hundung was started in the year 1981 and Commissioned in 1984. Assessment of land was carried out in connection with the above referred Civil Rule to ascertained the land owners and the areas affected by this road construction. An area of 151.85 acres belonging to 76 land owners were affected. No land acquisition proceeding was initiated for payment of compensation to the land owners on the ground that the land on which the road was constructed falls under Govt. of Khas land. This was found unacceptable to the High Court since the ownership of land in the Hill villages of Manipur vested in the villagers and the provisions of land Acquisition should be followed in acquiring land for public purposes. In regard to the determination of the market value of the affected by the Imphal-Ukhrul Roads I have gone through sale deeds of relevant area and time. Taking all factors in to account for determining the Market Value, the Compensation is fixed Rs. 25,000/-. (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per acre plus, 30% solatium with interest 15% as indicated in detail on Annexure-C/1 Further, compensation for damage caused by the Construction of Imphal-Ukhrul Road in respect of 22 (twenty two) paddy land owners is also awarded as per assessment made by the concerned Department as shown in detail at Annexure C/2. As per direction given by High Court.” 5. Out of the award, the issues raised are namely, compensation for construction of the road and damage caused to 22 (twenty two) paddy land owners. It is Annexure-C/2 to the award. In respect of Annexure - A/1, A/2 and Annexure-B, there is no dispute; Annexure-C/1 relates to land affected due to construction of Imphal-Ukhrul road, and the total number of persons entitled to compensation is 76. Annexure-C/2 relates to assessment for loss to paddy field due to construction of Imphal-Ukhrul road and it relates to 22 persons. 6. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order prior to the award and the relevant Para No. 25 & 26 read as follows:- “25. We are here concerned with Hill areas of Ukhrul sub-division (now district) which are inhabited by the Tangkhul Nagas who belong to the Scheduled Tribes of Manipur. In AIR 1961, Manipur 31, Luitang Khullakpa & Ors. Vs. We are here concerned with Hill areas of Ukhrul sub-division (now district) which are inhabited by the Tangkhul Nagas who belong to the Scheduled Tribes of Manipur. In AIR 1961, Manipur 31, Luitang Khullakpa & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Manipur and others, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that there is no Government Khas land in the hill areas of Ukhrul. The ownership of land situated in hill villages at, Manipur vests in the villagers. They do not hold the land under the pleasure of the Government. It was held that if land is to be acquired for public purpose form the villagers of hill village, provision of Acquisition Act must be followed. We have gone through the above judgment and we are of the view that the findings of the learned Judicial Commissioners are correct and the decision rendered in this case still holds the field and we entirely in agreement with the findings in the aforesaid case. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not accept the submission of the learned Govt. Advocate in this regard. 26. The Deputy Commissioner has also submitted the list of land owners who have been affected by the construction of the Imphal - Ukhrul road in response to the direction given by this Court on 28.11.91. The list shows that there are 22 persons whose paddy fields have been affected by the construction of the said road. It is also admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the affidavit that the construction of the road has had indirect effects Admittedly land has been taken away from the owner and fields have been damaged as a result of construction of the Imphal-Ukhrul road, but till today no steps have been taken for payment of compensation to the land owners.” 7. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State, and it was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 6.12.94. While setting aside Para 25 & 26 of the High Court's order above, the Supreme Court confirmed that the compensation should be given to all the persons concerned including the 22 persons whose paddy fields were affected in the course of acquisition and laying of the road. Thereby, an equitable order was passed. While setting aside Para 25 & 26 of the High Court's order above, the Supreme Court confirmed that the compensation should be given to all the persons concerned including the 22 persons whose paddy fields were affected in the course of acquisition and laying of the road. Thereby, an equitable order was passed. After that, the very same petitioner filed MC (C.R.) No. 325 of 1997 (Ref:-C.R. No. 1 of 1991) which was disposed of on 10.7.2007, directing the respondents to pay the compensation expeditiously. 8. Now, the petitioner pleads for the above stated relief, without specifying under what head he is claiming the sum of Rs. 94,35,449/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Nine) probably it relates to Annexure-C/1. An objection is raised by respondent No. 6 stating that the calculation itself is wrong because according to them, the total amount as per Annexure-C/1 is 86,36,449/- (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Nine). If that is the case, then the claim of 22 (twenty two) persons as per Annexure - C/2 for loss of paddy fields has no relevance in the present case. 9. If the 76 persons listed as per Annexure-C/1 have not been granted the compensation, they could have very well approached the authority on the basis of the order dated 10.07.2007 passed in MC (C.R.) No. 325 of 1997 (Ref:-C.R. No. 1 of 1991). There is no communication from the petitioner for the last 8 (eight) years as to what steps they have taken if they claim that the amount has not been paid. 10. On the contrary, respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 1-4 are not clear whether they have discharged their liability and that the compensation amount has been paid to the 76 persons. On one hand, the petitioners are vague and bereft of details. They have been going slow even after Court's order. The department also appears to be in slumber. The reply affidavit is as vague as vague can be. 11. The right of a person to just compensation is a well established principle. The State cannot acquire the land and fail to pay compensation as determined in the award proceedings. The poor people of hill areas cannot be expected to know the legal rights and act. The reply affidavit is as vague as vague can be. 11. The right of a person to just compensation is a well established principle. The State cannot acquire the land and fail to pay compensation as determined in the award proceedings. The poor people of hill areas cannot be expected to know the legal rights and act. From the pleadings and documents, it is evident that the petitioners have been approaching the authorities and have also obtained judicial orders in their favour. 12. In this circumstance, the Court has no other option except to direct respondent No. 6 to discharge all the pending claims of all persons in relation to compensation in terms of the award dated 30.03.1993, if it has not been discharged so far. If the authority has not paid the award amount, it is his duty to issue notice to each one of them and pay the compensation as per the award. 13. The compensation amount due to a person should not be retained by the Government under any circumstance. This Court if forced to pass such an order because the reply affidavit filed by the aforesaid respondent is thoroughly vague and without application of mind. The Senior Officer of the department is directed to call for explanation to each one of the deponent of the affidavit as to why, they did not respond to the Court's direction properly. 14. As a result, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 6, Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District, Manipur, to verify the award dated 30.03.1993 (Annexure-A/2) and the Annexures therein and settle all the pending amounts to the respective parties if not already settled on or before 30.11.2018, along with the necessary interest and solatium as applicable to each one of the persons whose name finds place in the award. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.