Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 38 (GAU)

Malsawma v. State of Mizoram

2021-01-27

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Since the issues involved in all the above ten (10) writ petitions are arising out of land acquisition Awards mentioned below in respect of Tuirial Hydro Electric Project, Mizoram under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 they are taken up together and disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. [2.] Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 45 of 2017; 51 of 2017 and 16 of 2014; Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 130 of 2013; 131 of 2013; 132 of 2013 and 135 of 2013. Also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 116 of 2015; 117 of 2015 and 118 of 2015. Further, heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Ms. Zairemsangpuii, the learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. V.K. Jindal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Roshan Subedi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/NEEPCO. [3.] The aforesaid ten writ petitions are preferred being not executed the following Awards are not executed relating to acquisition of lands of the petitioners for construction of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project, Mizoram. (A) Award No. 4/2002 dated 18/6/2002 [WP(C) No. 130/2013; WP(C) No. 16/2014 & WP(C) No. 118/2015] (B) Award No. 5/2003 dated 16/7/2003 & Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 dated 27.01.2006. [WP(C) No. 132/2013; WP(C) No. 135/2013; WP(C) No. 116/2015] (C) Award No. 5/2002 dated 26/8/2002 [WP(C) No.131/2013] (D) Award No. 6/2003 & Supplementary Award No.6/2003 [WP(C) No.45/2017 WP(C) No. 51/2017 WP(C) No. 117/2015] Now let us see the reliefs prayed by the petitioners Award wise and writ petition wise relevant thereto: (A) AWARD No. 4/2002: The Award No. 4 was made and published by the District Collector on 18/06/2002 for an amount of Rs. 8,04,90,627.00 towards payment of compensation to 352 awardees for trees, crops, plants etc., in respect of 9310 bighas of land to be acquired for submergence area (Phase-I). It may pertinently be mentioned that the NEEPCO in pursuance to MoU dated 12/08/2003 paid 50% of the awarded amount to the land holders, was subsequently objected by the State Government and Government of India. The following writ petitions are related to claim for execution of the aforesaid award and for making a supplementary award. It may pertinently be mentioned that the NEEPCO in pursuance to MoU dated 12/08/2003 paid 50% of the awarded amount to the land holders, was subsequently objected by the State Government and Government of India. The following writ petitions are related to claim for execution of the aforesaid award and for making a supplementary award. (i) W.P(C) No.130/2013: The aforesaid Writ Petition is filed by 229 number of Awardees with a common prayer to direct the Respondents to pay the balance compensation amount to the Petitioners under the above Award No. 4/2002 and also to make a Supplementary Award to the said Award No. 4 of 2002 and further to pay interest @ 6% p.a due to delay in payment. (ii) W.P(C) No.16/2014: This Writ Petition is filed by 20 number of Awardees of Award No. 4/2002 with similar prayers as made in W.P(C) No. 130/2013. (iii) W.P(C) No.118/2015: This Writ Petition is filed by 32 number of Awardees of Award No. 4/2002 with similar prayers as that of W.P(C) No. 130/2013. (B) AWARD NO. 5/2003: The Award No. 5/2003 dated 16/7/2003 was passed by the Collector for Rs. 5,58,60,928.00 for payment to 348 number of Awardees as compensation for trees, crops, plants etc., in respect of 16468.77 bighas of land acquired for submergence area Phase – II of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. (i) W.P(C) No. 132/2013: This Writ Petition is filed by 165 number of Awardees of Award No. 5/2003 with a prayer to direct the Respondents to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners as per Award No. 5/2003 and also to make a Supplementary Award to the Award No. 5/2003. (ii) W.P (C) No. 135/2013: This Writ Petition is filed by 53 number of Awardees of Award No. 5/2003 with similar prayers as that of W.P(C) No.132/2013. (iii) W.P (C) No.116/2015: This Writ Petition is filed by 44 number of Awardees of Award No.5/2003 with similar prayers as that of W.P (C) No. 132/2013. (C) AWARD NO. 5/2002: Award No. 5/2002 dated 26/8/2002 is for Rs.68,52,716.00 for payment to 74 petitioners as compensation for standing crops, trees etc., for construction of borrow area and saddle dam area in respect of 857.84 bighas of land was passed by the Collector. The following Writ Petition is related to the execution of the aforesaid award and for making Supplementary Award to Award No.5/2002. The following Writ Petition is related to the execution of the aforesaid award and for making Supplementary Award to Award No.5/2002. (i) W.P (C) No. 131/2013: The instant Writ Petition is filed by 70 number of Petitioners/ awardees for execution of the said award and for making a Supplementary Award to the Award No. 5. (D) AWARD NO. 6/2003: Award No. 6/2003 is for Rs.8,85,50,461.00 for payment to 196 petitioners who are Land Settlement Certificate holders as compensation for standing crops etc., in respect of 9189.94 bighas of land (Phase –III) was passed by the Collector. The following Writ Petitions are related to the Execution of the aforesaid award and for making Supplementary Award to Award No.6/2003:- (i) W.P (C) No. 117/2015: This Writ Petition is filed by 15 number of Awardees of Award No. 6/2003 for execution of the Award No. 6/2003 and to make a Supplementary Award to Award No. 6/2003. (ii) W.P(C) No. 51/2017 & W.P(C) No.45/2017: Consequent upon the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No.02/2011, the Government of Mizoram issued the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 to cancel all the LSCs of the land owners and to cancel the Award No.6/2003 and supplementary award No. 6/2003. The Writ Petitioners in both the writ petitions have assailed the said impugned order of the Government of Mizoram dated 05.08.2016. [4.] Petitioners of WP(C) Nos. 130/2013; 16/2014 and 118/2015 are the awardees of the Award No. 4/2002 dated 18.06.2002, petitioners of WP(C) No. 131/2013 are the awardees of the Award No. 5/2002 dated 22.08.2002, petitioners of WP(C) No. 132/2013, 135/2013 and 116/2015 are the awardees of the Award No. 5/2003 dated 14.07.2003 and the petitioners of WP(C) No. 117/2015 are the awardees of the Award No. 6/2003 dated 14.07.2003. [5.] All those awards were made by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Aizawl. Land of those 4 (four) Awards are on either side or both of the banks of the river Tuirial and those lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended for the public purpose, i.e., for construction of 60 Mega Watt - Tuirial Hydro Electric Project in Aizawl District. Description of those 4 (four) Awards are as follows:- Award No. 4/2002 Land at Village Council area of Mauchar, Saipum and North Hlimen. Notification dated 20.08.2001 Declaration dated 11.04.2002 Total land acquired - 9310.39 Bighas Temporary private land holdings – 352 in nos. Description of those 4 (four) Awards are as follows:- Award No. 4/2002 Land at Village Council area of Mauchar, Saipum and North Hlimen. Notification dated 20.08.2001 Declaration dated 11.04.2002 Total land acquired - 9310.39 Bighas Temporary private land holdings – 352 in nos. over 5508.00 Bighas Government free land - 3802.39 Bighas Award No. 5/2002 Land at Village Council area of Saipum and Mauchar Notification dated 18.01.2002 Declaration dated 10.07.2002 Total Land measuring - 857.84 Bighas Temporary private land holdings - 74 in nos. over 635 Bighas Government free land - 222.84 Bighas Award No. 5/2003 Land at Village Council area of Mauchar, Zohmun, Palsang, North Hlimen, North Khawdungsei. Notification dated 20.08.2001 Declaration dated 18.11.2002 Total Land measuring - 16468.77 Bighas Temporary private land holdings - 366 in nos. over 5535.5 Bighas Government free land - 10933.27 Bighas Award No. 6/2003 Land at Village Council area of North Serzawl, Ratu, Sunhluchhip, North Hlimen and Bukpui. Notification dated 20.08.2001 Declaration dated 09.05.2003 Total Land measuring - 9189 Bighas Temporary private land holdings - 196 in nos. over 3636.43 Bighas Government free land - 5553.51 Bighas [6.] WP(C) Nos. 130/2013; 131/2013; 132/2013; 135/2013; 16/2014; 116/2015; 117/2015 and 118/2015 relate to prayers for (i) payment of balance amount / non- payment of compensation for crops and other jirats standing over the land of the petitioners acquired for construction of Tuirial Hydro Electric Project, (ii) for payment of solatium and interest to them by making Supplementary Awards and also (iii) to pay them interest for delayed payment. Aforementioned Awards of the District Collector, Aizawl were approved vide letter dated 05.01.2006. [7.] Be it mentioned that the land holdings of the petitioners and other persons covered by those Awards are under temporary permits like Village Council Pass, Periodic Patta etc. and the Awards were made only for standing crops, trees, WRCs, fishery etc., and as there was no claim for land value, no Awards in that regard was made. [8.] As the awardees/LSC holders of the land involved in the Award No. 4/2002 did not receive any awarded amount of compensation, they by way of agitation did not allow the NEEPCO to start the construction work of said Tuirial Hydro Electrical Project. [8.] As the awardees/LSC holders of the land involved in the Award No. 4/2002 did not receive any awarded amount of compensation, they by way of agitation did not allow the NEEPCO to start the construction work of said Tuirial Hydro Electrical Project. As such, after a joint decision of the agitators/awardees, the Pass holders, LSC holders and the Government officials, the NEEPCO, which is the requiring authority paid 50% of the awarded amount to the awardees of the said Award No. 4/2002, enabling them to construct the said Hydro Electric Project. Excepting the same, no payments towards compensation in the aforementioned Awards have been made till date. However, NEEPCO has paid the requisite amount of Rs. 24.46 Crores to the Forest Department of the State as compensatory afforestation cost since deforestation of forest land was carried out for construction of the said project. [9.] While the State of Mizoram as Lushai Hills District Council was a part of the State of Assam, the Government of Assam on 28.01.1965 issued an Order under Section 14 r/w Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 notifying that the Forest within half a mile on either side of 16 (sixteen) rivers, including the river ‘Tuirial’ as Reserved Forest under the Mizo District Council w.e.f. the date of notifications issued on 16.04.1956 and 16.09.1957 respectively. The said Order dated 28.01.1965 of the Government of Assam was published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 19.05.1965. The erstwhile Lushai Hills District Council on being formed as Union Territory of India and then State of Mizoram, it adapted the said decision of the Government of Assam and accordingly, half a mile on either side of the river ‘Tuirial’ continued to be a Reserved Forest land. It is already noted above that the lands involved in these cases under the Award Nos. 4/2002, 5/2002, 5/2003 and 6/2003 of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl are located on either or both the banks of the said river Tuirial and were required for public purpose of construction of Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. [10.] It is noticed from several communications dated 16.07.1993, 15.10.1993, 26.03.1999, 05.11.1999, 16.03.2000 between the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India and the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram, that the lands of the said Tuirial Hydro Electric Project and the submerged areas fell under the Riverine Forest Land of the river Tuirial. [10.] It is noticed from several communications dated 16.07.1993, 15.10.1993, 26.03.1999, 05.11.1999, 16.03.2000 between the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India and the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram, that the lands of the said Tuirial Hydro Electric Project and the submerged areas fell under the Riverine Forest Land of the river Tuirial. Inspite of such knowledge, the Revenue Department of the State approved the aforesaid Awards of the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Aizawl regarding compensation for crop damages and jirats payable to its awardees/ petitioners/private individuals without ascertaining as to whether the lands occupied by them fell under the Reserve Forest Land or not. [11.] It needs to be mentioned that awardees of Award No. 6/2003 filed Execution Case No. 13/2010 in the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl for execution of the said Award, including the Supplementary Award. The learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl by her Order dated 10.12.2010 held inter-alia that the State has the legal obligation to make payment of the Awarded amount with interest by procuring the same from NEEPCO and directed to deposit the awarded amount in the Executing Court within three (3) months. [12.] Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the Executing Court, the respondent NEEPCO preferred a revision petition being CRP No. 2/2011 before this Court challenging the propriety and correctness of the said Order of the learned Executing Court dated 10.12.2010. While disposing the Revision Petition vide Judgment & Order dated 02.07.2012 this Court observed in no uncertain terms that as the State Government acquired the lands for the said project, as such, it is liable to pay compensation to the respective land owners. The Court further observed that whether the State Government should recover the amount due to the awardee petitioners from NEEPCO or whether the NEEPCO should pay the amount to the State Government is a matter which no way concerns the land owners and accordingly, the State Government is under an obligation to satisfy the Awards by depositing the same with the Executing Court. However, in view of the CBI investigation regarding the alleged illegal issuance of the Passes, LSCs, Periodic Pattas etc. However, in view of the CBI investigation regarding the alleged illegal issuance of the Passes, LSCs, Periodic Pattas etc. over such Government forest lands and the stand taken by the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram that the lands involved in the case fall under the Reserved Forest Land, by the said Order dated 02.07.2012, passed in CRP No. 2/2011, the Court opined that the Chief Secretary of the State may look into the matter and take a conscious decision keeping in mind the involvement of public interest, observing that it is not for the Court to suggest as to what course of action should be adopted and accordingly, refrained from saying any further. [13.] In PIL No. 15/2008, considering the fact that the land area involved in the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project being Forest Land and persons who without any right, title and interest, lodged their claims for compensation had been considered for payment of such compensation by the State Government on the basis of the Awards passed by the Collector, Aizawl and subsequently, the awarded amounts were being enhanced by the Reference Court, a Division Bench of this Court by an Order dated 21.04.2010 directed the CBI for investigation into the matter. Accordingly, the CBI registered a case being CBI (ACB) Case No. RC6(A) 2010-IMPH and after completion of investigation, laid a charge-sheet in May, 2012 against nine (9) persons, who are not petitioners in the Writ Petitions. [14.] Considering the Order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011 and the report of the CBI filed in May 2012, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram by his Order dated 05.08.2016 cancelled the LSCs falling within the Riverine Forest Land of Tuirial river with regard to the petitioners/awardees of the Awards aforementioned. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged the said order of the Government by filing the Writ Petitions under consideration stating that the same is illegal par-se. The petitioners have also challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 28.01.1965 passed under Section 14 r/w Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 that was earlier passed by the then Chief Executive Member, Mizo District Council notifying that the Forest area falling within half a mile on either side of the river ‘Tuirial’ as Reserve Forest Land. [15.] The petitioners have contended that the Awards No. 4/2002 dated 18.06.2002, Awards No. 5/2002 dated 22.08.2002, Awards No. 5/2003 dated 14.07.2003 and Award No. 6/2003 dated 14.07.2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Aizawl that are approved by the Revenue Department of the State with regard to compensation for acquisition of land for the said Tuirial Hydro Electric Project and its submerged areas are still in force and those Awards are not under challenge in any of the proceedings. [16.] While making assessment for compensation, the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Aizawl assessed the market value of lands under possession of the petitioner LSC holders based on the following considerations. (i) The Council of Ministers, Government of Mizoram in their meeting on 25.05.1999 decided that compensation may be paid for standing crops where the land is to be acquired not as a matter of recognizing the validity of the Passes issued by the Village Councils. Such being the case, there is no valid ground for ignoring the rightful claims of the private land owners whose lands are covered by the District Council Passes and which were found to have been allotted way back in 1950s. Moreover, most of the Passes in question were issued even before the promulgation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and a number of land holdings in question are situated outside the so-called Riverine Forest Reserved, which covers only the river bank at the radius 805 meters from Tuirial river. (ii) The Verification Reports indicate that the Environment & Forest Department has not physically looked after the said Riverine Forest and there had been every opportunity for private land owners to develop the land in question in such a situation. Moreover, no natural vegetations like wild bamboos, trees etc., which are claimed to be of the Forest Reserve are not counted for awarding compensation. As such, the compensation assessment under the present acquisition should not be treated to have similarities with those of the Compensatory Afforestation. (iii) With regard to payment for compensation for damages, if NEEPCO Ltd. takes the stand that they are not in a position to consider payment of compensation after they have paid substantial amount for Compensatory Afforestation to the Forest Department, the Government of Mizoram needs to decide the question as to whether or not compensation will be paid to the private land/garden owners. [17.] The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Aizawl clearly stated that the land involved in the area is situated on both the banks/sides of the river Tuirial. But, in none of those Awards, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Aizawl mentioned or specified regarding the parcel of land which fall within the Riverine Forest Land of river Tuirial and which are outside of such area. [18.] The NEEPCO took the stand that as they have already paid Compensatory Afforestation cost of Rs. 24.46 Crores to the Forest Department of the State, they would not pay any further amount towards payment of compensation against the Awards. Likewise, the Forest Department of the State also took the stand that as the land holdings involved in the awards fall under Tuirial Riverine Reserve Forest area, any Pass, LSCs etc., issued to any person(s)/private individual(s) for any such forest land is illegal and admitted that it has already received Compensatory Afforestation cost of Rs. 24.46 Crores from the NEEPCO to do the needful in this regard. [19.] Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that all the above referred Awards had attained finality after the same received due approval of the State Government vide the letter dated 05.01.2006. Mr. A.R. Malhotra emphatically submits that those Awards were duly passed by the Collector, Aizawl strictly following the prescribed procedure in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hearing the objections, counter objections and on the spot verification of the ownership claims of the petitioners over their respective land holdings so acquired as well. However, the respondent No. 2 having misread the observation made in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 02/2011 by order dated 05.08.2016, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram has illegally come to the conclusion that the LSCs issued to the petitioners for their land holdings were all illegal as the same are within the Riverine Forest area as declared and constituted by the erstwhile Mizo District Council way back in the year 1965 without affording the petitioners any opportunity of being heard. [20.] Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Government of Mizoram including the Forest Department had supported the claims of the petitioners in all the earlier Writ Petitions, but now the aforesaid contradictory/inconsistent new illegal stand has been taken in the instant Writ Petitions. According to Mr. [20.] Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Government of Mizoram including the Forest Department had supported the claims of the petitioners in all the earlier Writ Petitions, but now the aforesaid contradictory/inconsistent new illegal stand has been taken in the instant Writ Petitions. According to Mr. A.R. Malhotra, as the land was acquired by the State Government, it is liable to pay compensation as per the Awards to the petitioners, who were duly accepted to be the rightful owners of the same. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, relevantly referred to para No. 35 of the Judgment and Order, dated 08.05.2015 passed in Contempt Case No. 09/2014, wherein it was observed that by Order dated 02.07.2012, passed in the said CRP No. 2/2011, this Court neither made any specific direction to the Chief Secretary nor specified any time limit for compliance of any such direction and only made an observation which is evident from the word “may” that appears in ‘para 34’ of the aforesaid Order dated 02.07.2012. Therefore, Mr. A.R. Malhotra contends that the impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 declaring the LSCs, Passes etc. of the petitioners is invalid or non-est in law as before making the final notification as contemplated under Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 no preliminary notification under Section 15 of the said Act was published in the ZORAM HRIATTIRNA, which was the official bulletin of the Mizo District Council. [21.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, submits that the relevant records pertaining to declaration of the riverine area of Tuirial river as forest area under the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955, which is now renamed as the Mizoram (Forest) Act, 1995 are not traceable to ascertain whether the requirements of Sections 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the said Act were fulfilled or not. However, Mr. C. Zoramchhana submits that the Notification dated 16.04.1956 declaring certain river areas as Council Reserved Forest is presumed to have been issued only after fulfilling the requirements of the said Act of 1955. [22.] Mr. However, Mr. C. Zoramchhana submits that the Notification dated 16.04.1956 declaring certain river areas as Council Reserved Forest is presumed to have been issued only after fulfilling the requirements of the said Act of 1955. [22.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana further submits that the final Notification issued in the Assam Gazette dated 28.01.1965 would have not been issued had all the requirements of the said Act not been fulfilled, that is, a presumption may be taken that all claims of land holders which might have arisen with respect to the areas within Tuirial Riverine Forest were settled way back in 1950s. [23.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana submits that since the petitioners were allotted LSCs in 1993 and 1994, after 38 years of the impugned Notification, dated 28.01.1965, they are not supposed to know whether the requirements of the said Act were fulfilled or not. Mr. C. Zoramchhana vehemently submits that the case of the petitioners in regard to issuance of LSCs in their favor were not endorsed to the Directorate of Land Revenue & Settlement Department for decision and approval in view of the Order dated 13.05.1983 which stated that those proposed LSCs which are complicated in nature should be referred to the said Department for consideration and approval and as such, the LSCs issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer to the petitioners were void ab-initio. [24.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General contends that the Government has the prerogative to cancel all LSCs of the petitioners as per the provisions of the relevant Revenue Rules and added further that as per Section 3 (a) of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963, no land can be allotted under the said Act and that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 prohibits using of the reserved forest area for any non-forest purpose without approval of the Central Government. [25.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana further contends that when a process for acquisition of land was initiated, the Conservator of Forests, Mizoram reported vide his Letter dated 10.08.1990 that the entire proposed land area for acquisition for construction of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project falls under the Riverine Reserved Forest. [25.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana further contends that when a process for acquisition of land was initiated, the Conservator of Forests, Mizoram reported vide his Letter dated 10.08.1990 that the entire proposed land area for acquisition for construction of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project falls under the Riverine Reserved Forest. However, it is submitted that as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Section 3 (a) of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 the issue of LSCs to the petitioners during the period 1993-1994 within the Riverine Reserved Forest Area after 28 years from the date of the said Notification published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 19.05.1965 was illegal and as such, the LSCs issued to the petitioners were void ab initio. [26]. Mr. V.K. Jindal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the NEEPCO, submits that the writ petitions having contained the common prayer to execute the related Awards and to make Supplementary Award by awarding solatium and interest is not sustainable as there exists alternate legal remedy for execution thereof and provision for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose and in case of being aggrieved by any order passed by the executing Court, there is remedy for filing Civil Revision. Mr. V.K. Jindal further submits that some of the petitioners have approached to the Reference Court and the Executing Court for award of the additional benefits and for executing the related Awards and accordingly got appropriate reliefs. [27.] Mr. V.K. Jindal submits with reference to the Order dated 04.12.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 77/2006 filed by 34 number of awardees of Award No. 6/2003 that this Court had declined to pass any order for execution of the award and directed the land owners to approach the appropriate forum. Mr. V.K. Jindal, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that similarly by Order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 13/2010 filed by some of the awardees of Award No. 6/2003 and the Supplementary Award directed the State Government to make the payment after procuring the same from the NEEPCO. Thus, the aforesaid Order clearly demonstrates that some of the petitioners have already availed the alternate remedy through the Reference Court for grant of solatium etc. Thus, the aforesaid Order clearly demonstrates that some of the petitioners have already availed the alternate remedy through the Reference Court for grant of solatium etc. and as such, the prayer to execute the Award by way of filing Writ Petitions was declined. [28.] According to Mr. V.K. Jindal, the land in question is a reserved forest land and was converted to non-forest purpose on payment of deforestation compensation of Rs. 24.46 crores as assessed by the State Forest Department with due permission of the Central Government and as such, the land in question being a forest land no individual can acquire any right whatsoever over the same. Mr. V.K. Jindal relevantly expressed ignorance about the utilization of the said amount of Rs. 24.46 crores paid by the NEEPCO to the Government on account of deforestation compensation due to acquisition of the land for the Hydro Electric Project. [29.] Mr. V.K. Jindal vehemently submits that the petitioners had managed to procure LSCs through the Village Panchayats and the District Administration without the knowledge and consent of the State Government and as such, the fraudulently obtained Awards being void ab initio cannot be put into execution, and so the said Awards are not required to be challenged by any party. Mr. V.K. Jindal, however, submits that none of the above Awards was passed against NEEPCO and therefore, it is not a necessary party to the decision in the said Writ Petitions. The question of payment of the awarded amount is an issue between the petitioners and the State Government which acquired the land. [30.] A perusal of the impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 reveals that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram had relied on the purported direction contained in the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011 and the Joint Verification Reports as well while issuing the directions as under (relevant portion)- “………. [30.] A perusal of the impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 reveals that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram had relied on the purported direction contained in the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011 and the Joint Verification Reports as well while issuing the directions as under (relevant portion)- “………. From all the facts and documents available specifically the Joint Verification Reports and as the Hon’ble Gauhati Court also recognized the fact that the concerned land hereof lies under the Riverine Reserved Forest of Tuirial River and accepts the payment made by NEEPCO to Environment & Forest Department for compensatory afforestation as correct in Judgment & Order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011 thereby rendering illegal the issuance of LSCs within such Riverine Reserved Forest Area and as all the LSCs of the landowners covered by Award No. 6 of 2003/ Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 were also found to be illegally directly issued by the then Assistant Settlement Officer without approval of the Government, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram has thereby arrived at a decision, as obligated by the said Judgment & Order of the Hon’ble Gauhati Court, that necessary action be immediately taken as follows: 1. Revenue Department shall formally cancel all the LSCs of the landowners concerned hereof. 2. The District Collector concerned shall take appropriate steps for cancellation of the Award No. 6 of 2003 and Supplementary Award No. 6 of 2003. 3. The Government Advocate concerned in Execution Case No. 13/2010 and Review Case No. 12 of 2015 shall also immediately take necessary action to seek the Hon’ble Court?s judicious decision to vacate all the orders passed in the said Execution/ Review Case on account of this new development as each and every proceeding arising in the Court of Law based on Award No. 6/2003 or Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 i.e. LA Case No. 1 of 2004 and even the said Execution Case No. 13/2010 and Review Case No. 12/2015 is thereby rendered nugatory due to the fact that all the LSCs concerned in the said Award No. 6/2003 and Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 is found to be illegal and cancelled by the Government. 4. 4. The above decision and the subsequent actions to be taken thereof shall not in any way be deemed to have any derogatory affect on the ongoing project.” [31.] A perusal of the above Order, dated 05.08.2016, reveals that the same was issued based on the purported direction of this Court, dated 02.07.2012, passed in CRP No. 02/2011 which was, of course, as referred therein preceded by an agreement between the land holders and the Government held on 18.04.2013 and a number of decisions of the Council of Ministers, and further, in view of dismissal of Contempt Case No. 9/2014 as well as findings after verifications to the effect that the LSCs issued to the petitioners over the Tuirial riverine reserved forest area were not issued following the relevant provisions of law in force. [32.] It is noticed that in the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012, passed in CRP No. 02/2011, this Court, besides setting aside and modifying the Order dated 10.12.2010 of the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 13/2010, to the effect “by procuring the same from the NEEPCO, observed as herein below extracted – “34. Before parting with the record, this Court would like to observe that in view of the CBI investigation as referred to above and the stand taken by Forest Department, Mizoram, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram may look into the matter and take a conscious decision keeping in view the public interest involved. However, it is not for the Court to suggest as to what course of action should be adopted. Beyond this, the Court refrains from saying any further”. [33.] With regard to the above para No. 34, this Court in Contempt Case No.09/2014 interpreted the said para in para 35 of the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2015 as follows:- “35. The Court while deciding the said revision petition, by its order dated 02.07.2012 passed in said CRP No. 2/2011 neither made any specific direction to the Chief Secretary of the State nor specified any time limit for compliance of any such direction and only made an observation which is evident from the word “may” that appears in ‘para 34’ of the said order dated 02.07.2012. Said observation of the Court dated 02.07.2012 with “may” itself is susceptible to an interpretation that as per the said order dated 02.07.2012, keeping in view the public interest involved in the case, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Mizoram was free either to look into the matter and take a conscious decision or not”. [34.] Thus, the observation made in para 34 of the Judgment and Order, dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 02/2011 was interpreted and clarified in the aforesaid subsequent Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Contempt Case No. 09/2014 to the effect that the same had no legally binding effect on, that is, not a mandatory direction specific to the State Government to do certain act in a certain way as misinterpreted in the Order dated 05.08.2016. On the other hand, the Government of Mizoram also referred to the Order dated 21.04.2010 passed in PIL No. 15/2008 based on which the CBI investigation was going on into the allegedly bogus claims made by some of the awardees. Pursuant to the said order, the CBI registered a case being CBI (ACB) Case No. RC6(A)2010-IMPH and after completion of investigation laid a charge-sheet against 9 (nine) persons, none of whom is petitioner in the above Writ Petitions. [35.] Further, it is noticed that on 18.04.2013, the Government of Mizoram acknowledged their liability to the awardees by convening a meeting with them to bargain on the amount of awarded compensation for acquisitioning their lands to which they agreed “to accept payment of certain amount of compensation plus interest etc.,”. However, instead of following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in making payment of compensation to the awardee/petitioners as per the terms of the Awards, which received the final approval of the State Government, resorted to two physical verifications in absence of all the petitioners/LSC holders and without affording them sufficient opportunity of being heard unilaterally came to the findings that “all the LSCs of the petitioners falls within the riverine reserved forest areas” and their “LSCs were directly issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer without approval of the Government and these LSCs are thereby invalid in the eye of the Government”. [36.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment rendered in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited -vs- Official Liquidator Of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited reported in (2018) 10 SCC 707 held as under- “12. [36.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment rendered in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited -vs- Official Liquidator Of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited reported in (2018) 10 SCC 707 held as under- “12. A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands. The untenability of an inconsistent stand in the same case was considered in Amar Singh v. Union of India “50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions.” [37.] Thus, in the backdrop of facts, it is noticed that the Government of Mizoram most arbitrarily without due process of the provisions of the Mizoram Land Revenue Laws and the Rules made thereunder, pre-decided and directed the District Collector to cancel all the LSCs of the Landowners concerned formally and to this end to initiate appropriate steps for cancellation of the Award No. 6 of 2003 and the Supplementary Award No. 6 of 2003 as stated above. [38.] With regard to the plea of the respondents/State Government that the acquired land falls within the riverine forest area of Tuirial river, this Court feels it apposite to extract herein below the relevant provisions of The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955- “14. Power to constitute Council Reserve Forest- The District Council may constitute any land at the disposal of the Council as a Council Reserve Forest in the manner hereinafter provided. 15. Notification of proposal to constitute a Council Reserve Forest- Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as a Council Reserve Forest, the Executive Committee shall publish a notification in the Zoram Hriattirna, (1) declaring that it is proposed to constitute such a land a reserved forest, and (2) specifying as nearly as possible the situation and limits of such land and (3) inviting claim of rights and objections. 16. 16. Survey of the proposed Council Reserved Forest- The Executive Committee, as soon as a notification is issued under Section 15 shall cause the area to be surveyed and demarcated by one or more of the Council Forest Officers not below the rank of Forester, shall also enquire into any right of any person in the area and shall also submit reports the Executive Committee which report shall deal with all points including compensation involved or alteration of the area recommended. 17. Disposal of claims and objections- All claims of right on the land and all objections against the proposed Council Reserved Forest shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee within 120 days from the date of publication of the notification under section 15. 18. Council Forest Tribunal-The Executive Committee shall appoint a Council Forest Tribunal who shall decide all claims of right on land all objections against the proposed Reserved Forest. The orders of the Council Forest Tribunal shall be published forthwith in the Assam Gazette. 19. Appeal- All appeals against the decision of the Council Forest Tribunal shall be submitted to the Executive Committee within 30 days of the order issued by the Council Forest Tribunal. The Executive Committee shall review the case as it deems necessary and pass order which shall be final. 20. Nothing contained in sections 18 and 19 of this Act shall bar the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court. 21. Final Notification constituting Council Reserved Forest- The Executive Committee shall after disposal of all appeals, publish in the Assam Gazette the final notification specifying the limit of the Council Reserved Forest incorporating therein any changes and modifications made from the preliminary notification under section 15 of this Act and declaring the same to be a Council Reserved Forest from the date fixed by such notification”. [39.] The above provisions in The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 prescribed the procedure for constituting the Government reserved forest in the State of Mizoram except the areas under the jurisdiction of the Chakma, Lai and Mara District Councils. [39.] The above provisions in The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 prescribed the procedure for constituting the Government reserved forest in the State of Mizoram except the areas under the jurisdiction of the Chakma, Lai and Mara District Councils. It is seen that the above Section 14 of the said Act empowers the Government to constitute any Government land as a Government Reserve Forest and Section 15 requires to publish notification of proposal in Zoram Hriattirna (The then official bulletin of Mizo District Council) for this purpose specifying the land and thereby to invite claim of rights and objections if any, in this regard. Thereafter, Section 16 required survey of the proposed site and demarcation of the same by the Council Forest Officer(s) and followed by disposal of claims and objections and then to submit a written report in this regard to the Executive Committee within 120 days from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 15 aforementioned. Thereafter, as provided in Section 21 of the Act, the Executive Committee, after disposal of all appeals as provided under Section 19, required to publish in the Assam Gazette, the final Notification specifying the limit of the Council Reserved Forest and declare the same to be the Council Reserved Forest from the date of such final Notification. [40.] A perusal of the Notification dated 28.01.1965 published in the Assam Gazette dated 19.05.1965 reveals that the Chief Executive Officer, Mizo District Council declared forests located within half a mile on either side of the river Tuirial and 15 other rivers to be the Council Reserved Forest. This Notification was issued under Section 14 read with Section 21 of The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955. However, it is noticed that before making the final Notification under Section 21 of the said Act, no preliminary notification as required under Section 15 of the said Act, quoted above, was ever published in the official bulletin of the Council “Zoram Hriattirna”. As such, the impugned Notification cannot be accepted to be a legally valid notification declaring the Tuirial riverine area as the Council Reserved Forest, where LSCs of the petitioners were issued in favour of the petitioners for no fault of them or their misrepresentation of facts. Hence, the aforesaid impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 stating that the lands of the petitioners are covered by the Riverine Reserved Forest area is not sustainable. Hence, the aforesaid impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 stating that the lands of the petitioners are covered by the Riverine Reserved Forest area is not sustainable. [41.] The grounds of delay and laches to challenge the said Gazette Notification dated 19.05.1965 cannot come on the way of the petitioners? right to seek relief of compensation under the Awards as the cause of action for challenge of the said Notification by the petitioners arose only on and from the date of the impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 as the date of knowledge. Therefore, the petitioners have good and sufficient reasons for the delayed challenge to the said Notification. Further, it follows an obvious inference that as Section 22 of The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 has been adapted and continued to be in force till date, it is undoubtedly within the competence and authority of the Executive Committee of the then Mizo District Council or the Government of Mizoram, after amendment, allotment of lands may be made to any individual or a community granting rights of any nature to such individuals of a community as the case may be and therefore, the land allotments made by issuing LSCs in favour of the petitioners cannot now be cancelled without following the procedure prescribed in the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 and the Rules made thereunder. Moreover, as their lands have been included in the Final Awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the question whether those are valid or not cannot be gone into at a subsequent stage. [42.] It is surprising to notice that the Notification dated 16.04.1956, under Section 14 read with Section 21 of The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 was published by the Executive Committee of the Mizo District Council, referred to above, which the respondents claimed to be the preliminary Notification in the Zoram Hriattirna (the official Bulletin of the Council) in its issue dated 29.02.1956, that is, before the date of the Notification without any explanation and as such, both the dates could not be reconciled being contradictory. It is also surprising that the respondents have claimed that after an unexplained delay of 10 years from the aforementioned preliminary Notifications, the State Government published the so called final Notification in The Assam Gazette dated 19.05.1965 whereby, one mile riverine area was reduced to half a mile on either side of the river. It is also surprising that the respondents have claimed that after an unexplained delay of 10 years from the aforementioned preliminary Notifications, the State Government published the so called final Notification in The Assam Gazette dated 19.05.1965 whereby, one mile riverine area was reduced to half a mile on either side of the river. The aforesaid claims of the respondents/Government were not raised literally in course of the acquisition process of the lands of the petitioners leading to the said Awards, which have already attained finality on receiving the Government approval, the same cannot be raised at this belated stage to defeat the rights of the petitioners to compensations in terms of the awards. [43.] The Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation And Another -vs- Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 held as under- “18. The 1894 Act being an ex-propriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled proposition of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad) that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” [44.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Others -vs- I.S Nirvane Gowda & Others reported in (2007) 15 SCC 744 held that “……………When the lands were included in the reserved forest, the entries in the Revenue records were of no consequence and further, mere saguvali chits did not confer any title on the suit lands. ………..which was the part of the reserved forest.” However, it may be noted that in the fact situations in the instant proceedings the purported declaration of the land in question as council forest reserve cannot be said to have been established in accordance with the relevant provisions of law as stated above in the present writ proceedings. ………..which was the part of the reserved forest.” However, it may be noted that in the fact situations in the instant proceedings the purported declaration of the land in question as council forest reserve cannot be said to have been established in accordance with the relevant provisions of law as stated above in the present writ proceedings. [45.] In the case of State of Jharkhand & Other -vs- K.N. Farms and Industries Private Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 297 , it is held as extracted hereunder- “The said mandamus could not have been issued as it was clearly beyond the scope of writ petition No. 1546 of 2005. The respondent had not made a grievance that the agreement dated 28.02.1960 was ultra vires the provisions of the 1894 Act or that even though possession of a substantial portion of the land specified in the agreement had been handed over on 31-3-1960, the State Government was under a legal obligation to initiate the acquisition proceedings and pay compensation under the 1894 Act.” [46.] It is noticed that pursuant to the Notification published by the Collector, Aizawl under Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners have submitted their claims for compensation for acquisitioning their lands for the public purpose of construction of Tuirial Hydro Electric Project under NEEPCO and after due process of enquiry into the objections of the persons interested and on due approval passed the Awards under Section 11 of the said Act and thereafter, pronounced the final Awards under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. It is seen that some of the petitioners, more particularly of WP(C) No. 130/2013; WP(C) No. 16/2014; WP(C) No. 118/2015; WP(C) No. 132/2013; WP(C) No. 135/2013 and WP(C) No. 116/2015 being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded approached the Civil Court for execution of the Awards. Having not got appropriate reliefs, they expected in the execution proceedings, have preferred the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of following the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the effective protection of their interest in the lands and right to compensation for acquisitioning the same for public purpose. It may be mentioned that Part-V of the Act deals with the mode of payment of compensation of the awarded amount for land acquisition. It may be mentioned that Part-V of the Act deals with the mode of payment of compensation of the awarded amount for land acquisition. Section 31(2) of the Act requires the Collector to deposit the awarded amount in Court in case it is not received by the persons interested or there is some dispute. Under the said Act, the deposit is required only with a view to avoid liability to pay interest, but if it does not deposit the amount under Section 31, acquisition would not lapse thereby. The land owners? right to be compensated is enforceable against the State as the Awards in question are not vitiated by malafide and it is the liability of the Collector in terms of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to pay the amount awarded together with interest in the event of the amount not being paid on time to the awardee/petitioners. [47.] A land acquisition Award undoubtedly has the sanctity of a decree and as such, in the complicated backdrops of claims and counter-claims of the parties in the instant writ proceedings, the Awards in question cannot be executed by resorting to the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 by way of issuing the writ of mandamus or certiorari as a short cut method to compel the Government which has not bothered to pay the compensation to the awardee petitioners, whose landed property has been acquisitioned more than eighteen (18) years ago for public purpose. The petitioners apparently have an alternate and efficacious remedy in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to compel the Government to pay the compensation due to them, in the present complicated nature of facts involved in their claims and counter-claims of the State Government, the writ jurisdiction cannot be the appropriate remedy to enforce their rights. It may be pointed out here that the Collector by making the Awards did not act as agent of the Government, but as a statutory authority and the same having attained finality on receipt of approval of the Government, the same do bind both the Collector and the writ petitioners. It may further be pertinently mentioned, as submitted by both sides, that the acquired land has already been handed over to the NEEPCO and the NEEPCO has already completed construction of the Hydro Electric Project. [48.] Accordingly, directions are made as follows- (A). It may further be pertinently mentioned, as submitted by both sides, that the acquired land has already been handed over to the NEEPCO and the NEEPCO has already completed construction of the Hydro Electric Project. [48.] Accordingly, directions are made as follows- (A). The impugned Order dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram and the impugned Notification dated 28.01.1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 are hereby set aside and quashed as prayed for in WP(C) No. 45/2017 and WP(C) No. 51/2017; and (B). The petitioners of all the above Writ Petitions shall seek alternative remedy for execution of the Awards in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is, however, made clear that despite having directed as above, the State Government is at liberty to pay the compensation amounts due to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.