JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1-4 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5-7. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a direction for the respondents to pay the petitioners fair compensation including land value, solatium and interest as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for a direction for quashing the notification dated 11.03.1982 declaring ‘Thorang Tlang’ as a Reserved Forest for acquisition of the farmlands of the petitioners for the purpose of Thorang Tlang Wildlife Sanctuary and for release of the petitioners lands after paying due compensation as per law. 3. Mr. Vanlalnghaka learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are from Dampui South Village and they have been residing in the area, what is now known as Thorang Tlang Sanctuary. The petitions were farmers and have been planting crops within the said village since the year 1992 having properties covered by periodic pattas and village council passes. This area was also notified as “Thorang Elephant Santuary” in 1995 but no information was given to them. The State had declared Thorang as Reserved Forest vide its notification dated 11.03.1982. Then around 2011, the respondents informed them that the said village is a wildlife sanctuary and that they have to be relocated. The petitioners were pressurize with a scheme wherein they would be relocated to a new location and that they would be aid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs per family. The respondents resort to stoppage of all infrastructural and health facilities to the village as by means of coercion, forced the petitioners to leave the Dampui South under the scheme of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs each for relocation of their homes, however, since they was no proper relocation scheme, the said 10 lakhs was not sufficient and have hence have approached this court that their lands may be acquired as per the 2013 Act since the petitioners are having Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas. 4. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1982 notification was not issued as per the prescribed procedure and the petitioners had no knowledge of the declaration of the village as Reserved Forest area. 4. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1982 notification was not issued as per the prescribed procedure and the petitioners had no knowledge of the declaration of the village as Reserved Forest area. The said notification existed prior to the existence of the village and while they were allowed to reside in the village for 20 years, there was no mentioned of the notification during all those years. The petitioners were then issued eviction notice and were given rehabilitation packages of Rs.10 for lakhs which is insufficient for any rehabilitation. 5. The learned counsel submits that the notification dated 11.03.1982 was not done by following the prescribed procedure and the thus this notification should be held void ab-initio. The Learned counsel has relied on the following citations wherein it was held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others Vs. Manju Jain and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157 para 22-24, In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 . 6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the petitioners cannot take the plea that they were not aware the said duly notified notification of 1982 since ignorance of law is not an excuse. The State Government is not expected to give a copy of the notification to each house hold. The petitioners had agreed to move out of the area by receiving the sum of Rs.10 lakhs for relocation, this relocation scheme was done under the National Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 2007. The guideline which was laid down by the Central Government has been adopted in the State. It was not the responsibility of the State Government to find a place for relocation but the petitioners can reside where ever they wish alongwith the package which were given to them. The Government had initially paid them Rs. 8 lakhs as rehabilitation packages and the remaining 2 lakhs was paid after the petitioners had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) 2013 for payment of the remaining 2 lakhs and by filing of the Contempt Case (C) No.7 of 2016. No claim was made by the petitioners during this period for payment of compensation of their land under 2013 Act. 8 lakhs as rehabilitation packages and the remaining 2 lakhs was paid after the petitioners had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) 2013 for payment of the remaining 2 lakhs and by filing of the Contempt Case (C) No.7 of 2016. No claim was made by the petitioners during this period for payment of compensation of their land under 2013 Act. The petitioners have now approach this court as late as in 2015. The petitioners are said to be the periodic pass holder in the year 2005 when this area was already declared as Reserved Forest/Wildlife Sanctuary. Further the Village Council cannot issue such passes being not authorize. 7. The learned Government Advocate further submits that though the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 11.3.1982, they have not challenge the subsequent notification in 2002 and has not raised any objection with regards to the notification 2002. 8. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent No.5-7 submits that the petitioners have not made any claimed against the Union of India and therefore they have nothing much to submit in this matter. 9. Having heard the submissions made by both the parties and on careful peruse of the documents on record, this court finds that the petitioners had accepted the sum of Rs.10 lakhs which was paid to them as per the National Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 2007, adopted by the State Government even though they had acquired the full amount of the rehabilitation money after approaching this court in WP(C) 2013 and the Contempt Case (C) No.7 of 2016. During this whole period there was no mention of receiving the money under protest nor was any demand made for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land, Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. 10. At this stage I find it fit to highlight some of the relevant portion of the National Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 2007 which provides that ; “7.20 The affected families may be given the option to take a lump-sum amount in lieu of one or more of the benefits specified in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.19, the amount being determined by the appropriate Government after consultation with the requiring body. 7.2 Any affected family owning house and whose house has been acquired or lost, may be allotted free of cost house site to the extent of actual loss of area of the acquired house but not more than two hundred and fifty square metre of land in rural areas, or one hundred and fifty square metre of land in urban areas, as the case may be, for each nuclear family: Provided that, in urban areas, a house of up to one hundred square metre -r' ,carpet areamay be provided in lieu thereof. Such a house, if necessary, may be offered in a multi-storied building complex rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under this policy. 7.19 In case of linear acquisitions, in projects relating to railway lines, highways, transmission lines, laying of pipelines and other such projects wherein only a narrow stretch of land is acquired for the purpose of the project or is utilised for right of way, each khatedarin the affected family shall be offered by the requiring body an ex-gratia payment of such amount as the appropriate Government may decide, but not less than twenty thousand rupees, ,in addition to the compensation or any other benefits due under the Act or programme or scheme under which the land, house or other property is acquired: Provided that, if as a result of such land acquisition, the land-holder becomes landless or is reduced to the status of a "small" or "marginal" farmer, other rehabilitation and resettlement benefits available under this policy shall also be extended to such affected family. 7.21.12 The affected Scheduled Tribes families, who were in possession of forest \ lands in the affected area prior to the 13th day of December, 2005, shall also be eligible for the rehabilitation and resettlement even though they claim to be in possession of forest \ lands in the affected area prior to the 13th day of December, 2005” 12. Thus it is clear that the petitioners had willingly taken the option of one time lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for their rehabilitation and resettlement even though they claim to be in possession of land within the Thorang Tlang Reserved Forest area. 13. Thus it is clear that the petitioners had willingly taken the option of one time lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for their rehabilitation and resettlement even though they claim to be in possession of land within the Thorang Tlang Reserved Forest area. 13. I do not find any force in the submission that the petitioners should be compensated for their lands under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when the said area where the petitioners are said to have Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas, was notified as Reserved Forest/Wildlife Sanctuary way back in 1982. The petitioners are said to have settled in the area in 1992, while it was already declared a Reserved Forest Area way back in 1982 vide notification dated 11.03.1982, thus the question of informing the petitioners of the notification before its issuance does not arise. Further the petitioners have opted for the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the National Rehabilitation & Settlement Scheme, 2007, which is said to be adopted by the State and legality of the said Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas is also another aspect which however need not be discussed any further considering the fact that petitioners have been paid the lump-sum amount in lieu of one or more of the benefits specified in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.19 of the Scheme. 14. In view of the above reasoning the WP(C) is dismissed without costs and stands disposed.