JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the impugned Letters dated 14.04.2021, by which the petitioners have been asked to vacate Serhmun Village, by treating them as unauthorized occupants in the Dampa Tiger Reserve (Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary). 3. The petitioners case is that the Government of Mizoram, Environment, Forest & Climate Change Department had issued a Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.2017, whereby the Governor of Mizoram, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 18 read with Section 19 to 25 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was pleased to notify his intention to extend the existing core area of Dampa Tiger Reserve, by including the entire area of the Serhmun Village Council land, as given in the Schedule. Thereafter, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 26(A)(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Governor of Mizoram was pleased to declare the area given in the Schedule, which included the Serhmun Village Council area to be the revised core area of the Dampa Tiger Reserve (Dampa Wildlife Sanctuary) vide Notification dated 06.09.2018, w.e.f. the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. 4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that prior to issuance of the Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.2017, the State Government had made a survey on 20.03.2016 of all the families living in Serhmun Village, who were to be given the package amount of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” for Village relocation/rehabilitation from the Dampa Tiger Reserve, in terms of the National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2007, herein after referred to as the “2007 Policy”, issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, (Department of Land Resources), (Land Reforms Division). 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the parents of the petitioners had received Rs. 10 Lakhs for Village relocation/rehabilitation in terms of the 2007 Policy. However, the petitioners had left the families of their parents after the Survey had been done by the State Government in the year 2016 and had lived separately in separate households prior to the publication of the Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.2017. 6. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners have not been given the amount of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” package for Village relocation/rehabilitation, as given to the other persons living in Serhmun Village. 6. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners have not been given the amount of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” package for Village relocation/rehabilitation, as given to the other persons living in Serhmun Village. He accordingly prays that a direction should be issued to the State Government to pay to the petitioners, the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs each, for the purpose of Village relocation/rehabilitation, in terms of the 2007 Policy. 7. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents submits that the petitioners were not living separately from their parents and did not have separate households at the time the Survey was done in Serhmun Village, for payment of the package of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” for Village relocation/rehabilitation in terms of the 2007 Policy. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that there is no basis for the petitioners claiming the package of Rs. 10 Lakhs per family. She submits that there is nothing to show that the petitioners had separate families or lived in separate households/buildings, at the time the Survey of the families living in Serhmun Village was conducted by the Government on 20.03.2016. Further, there no proof that the petitioners had families of their own, keeping in mind the households’ status of the petitioners, reflected in Annexure- XX1 of the affidavit-in-opposition. She submits that as per Report in Annexure XXI of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondents, all the petitioners were unmarried and living with their parents at the time Survey was done by the State Government. All the parents of the petitioners were given the package of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” and as such, there is no basis for the petitioners to now suddenly have a family and to live in separate households within a period of one year. She accordingly prays that the writ petition should be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The stand of the petitioners is that they had established separate families of their own and were living in separate households prior to the issuance of the Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.2017. The above being said, it is an admitted fact that the parents of the petitioners received “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” for Village relocation/rehabilitation in terms of the 2007 Policy. The above being said, it is an admitted fact that the parents of the petitioners received “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” for Village relocation/rehabilitation in terms of the 2007 Policy. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were living with their parents at the time the Survey was conducted on 20.03.2016. There is no averment made by the petitioners that they are the owners of lands or buildings in Serhmun Village Council area. Further, agreements were executed on 07.11.2017 between the parents of the petitioners and the respondents, which showed that the parents of the petitioners had agreed to the package of “Rs. 10 Lakhs per family” for Village relocation/rehabilitation. 11. Clause 8.3.2 of the 2007 Policy provides that any affected person, if aggrieved, for not being offered the admissible rehabilitation resettlement benefits, may move an appropriate petition for redressal of his or her grievances to the Ombudsman, who is to be appointed by the appropriate Government, in terms of Clause 8.3.1 of the 2007 Policy. Clause 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 of the 2007 Policy is reproduced below as follows:- “8.3.1. An Ombudsman shall be appointed by the appropriate Government, in the manner as may be prescribed, for timebound disposal of the grievances arising out of the matters covered by this policy. 8.3.2. Any affected person, if aggrieved, for not being offered the admissible rehabilitation and resettlement benefits as provided under this policy, may move an appropriate petition for redressal of his or her grievances to the Ombudsman concerned.” 12. As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners to approach the Ombudsman, who is to be appointed by the appropriate Government, this Court is of the view that this present writ petition should not be entertained any further. Accordingly, the petitioners are given the liberty to approach the State Government with their grievance and in which case, the State Government shall refer the grievance of the petitioners to an Ombudsman to be appointed in terms of Clause 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 of the 2007 Policy. 13. Accordingly, if any representation(s) are made by the petitioners with regard to their grievance, the appropriate Government should appoint an Ombudsman in terms of the 2007 Policy, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. 13. Accordingly, if any representation(s) are made by the petitioners with regard to their grievance, the appropriate Government should appoint an Ombudsman in terms of the 2007 Policy, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The Ombudsman so appointed shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioners’ representation(s) and also look into the question as to whether the petitioners had established a separate family and were living in separate households between 20.03.2016 and 24.07.2017, i.e., the date of the issuance of the Preliminary Notification. 15. Status quo as on date shall be maintained till the petitioners’ representation(s) are placed before the Ombudsman to be appointed by the appropriate Government. The direction for status quo is subject to the condition that the petitioner(s) submit their representations to the State Government, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.