Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1306 (GAU)

Nh-29 Landowners Union v. State Of Nagaland

2022-11-29

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong for the petitioners, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG, Government of Nagaland appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Also heard Mr. Z. Kulnu, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 5 and 9 although notice has been duly served. 2. 230 petitioners have joined together and have filed the instant writ petition challenging the actions of the respondent authorities, i.e. the State of Nagaland for illegally dispossessing them from their patta land and thereupon have also not paid any compensation in that regard. The brief facts of the instant case is that by an order No. REV-13/93-D dated 17.02.1995, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland it was directed to all villagers/residents from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima to submit the details of their establishment i.e. construction costs for their buildings/houses and other developments in their respective lands to the said Office within a period of one month for acquisition/compensation for the purpose of four-laning. It was also mentioned that failing which, claim for compensation would not be entertained. Accordingly, all the land-owners including the petitioners or their predecessor in interest, submitted the details of their establishments. 3. While the aforesaid process was going on, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland had issued Notification No. REV-12/93-D dated 17.04.2000, wherein it was mentioned that in pursuance to the Government letter No. NH/NH-39(A)/98 dated 09.02.2000, notice was given under the provisions of Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 upon those persons whose buildings and constructions fell within 27 meters of the road, i.e. 13.5 meters on either side from the center of the road, i.e. NH-39, 110-123 kms from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima. It was further directed as per the said Notification to all concerned individuals to show-cause on or before 02.05.2000 as to why an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Public Land Act of 1971 should not be passed against them for evicting them from the said land. This particular Notification was also published in a daily newspaper, Nagaland Post on 18.05.2000. 4. This particular Notification was also published in a daily newspaper, Nagaland Post on 18.05.2000. 4. Thereupon, various land-owners including the petitioners had submitted a reply on 18.05.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur stating inter alia that they were being issued land pattas by the State Government and being land-owners have been developing their premises from time to time. It was further mentioned that as they were patta-holders the question of them occupying the land as unauthorized do not arise. Further to that it was stated that if the District Administration required land of the land-owners along the NH39 for public interest; the same can be taken by the District Administration after paying due compensation for both the land and constructions developed therein and the land-owners should not suffer due to contradictions within the Government i.e. issuing pattas on one hand and Urban Planning on the other. As the apprehension of the land-owners including the petitioners continued in spite of submitting their show-cause reply they constituted a Union that is known as the Ad-hoc Land-Owner Committee along NH-39 (Purana Bazar to Chumukedima) and filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)/98(K)/2000. 5. The case of the petitioners therein in the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C)/98(K)/2000 was to quash and set aside the eviction orders and to give a direction to the respondents to pay compensation. This Court, by an order dated 06.06.2000 issued Rule and as an interim directed that until further orders the orders of eviction dated 22nd, 23rd and 24th May, 2000 be stayed. Thereupon, the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C)/98(K)/2000 was disposed of vide a Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000. 6. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition took into consideration that the initiation of proceedings under the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 was without jurisdiction and void-abinitioas the land in question did not fall within the exclusionary definition of ‘public land’. 6. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition took into consideration that the initiation of proceedings under the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 was without jurisdiction and void-abinitioas the land in question did not fall within the exclusionary definition of ‘public land’. It further appears from the said judgment passed by this Court that this Court had categorically held that, instead of initiating proceedings Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971, the appropriate authority is obliged to initiate for acquisition of land either by publication of public notice as envisaged under Section-4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, or any section under Sections 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the National Highway Act, 1967, which is in pari materia of the procedure prescribed under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment, this Court also observed on the contention being made by the learned counsel for the State Government then that in the circumstance the petitioners were encroachers and did not have any rights to the land, instead of preferring a civil suit, the State Government would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under the National Highway Act, 1956 where adequate provisions have been provided for resolving such dispute. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgment being relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant lis is quoted herein below: “7. Despite of the quashing of the impugned orders for the reasons stated above, one thing is clear in my mind that the proposed acquisition of land is for important public purpose, namely: the expansion of National Highway- 39 into four lanes, and I am of the view that, instead of initiating the proceeding under the Unauthorized Occupation Act, 171, the appropriate authority is obliged to initiate for acquisition of land either by publication of public notice as envisaged under Section- 4 of the Act, or any action under Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the National Highway Act, 1967 which is in pari materia of the procedure prescribed under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 8. Mr. Mr. Zhimomi concedes the land owners are ready to part with their land situated within the vicinity of the proposed expansion of four lanes of NH-39 provided their lands are acquired and compensation is paid to them. It is however, contended by Mr. Jamir that, on earlier occasion, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur resorted to settle the dispute amicably by summoning the land owners to the spot on different dates with land documents and others however, the land owners did not co-operate with the administration. This submission has been resisted by Mr. Zhimomi that, in fact the land owners assembled on the spot on the appointed ay, but it is the administration who has failed to turn up. Be that as it may, I have already observed that attention aimed at resolving the dispute without further delay. If so necessary even by making amicable settlement of the market value of the land and compensation be paid to the land owners by settling amicably instead of going through the elaborate procedure which would ultimately delay in acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. 9. It is expected that when such notification is issued by the administration informing the land owners they should co-operate with the administration and settle the matter amicably, so that the larger interest of the public do not suffer. 10. Before parting with the record, I may dispose of one argument advanced by Mr. Jamir. It is contended by Mr. Jamir that the land owners have been encroaching upon the land marked for the expansion of National Highway. If, on this availability of documents of land owners found that some portion of the land marked for the expansion of National Highway-39 is encroached upon, definitely the appropriate authority may file a civil suit and evict the encroacher which ultimately would linger the litigation that may create more problem than solving it. Alternately, the appropriate authority can resort to the provisions of National Highway Act, 1956 where adequate provision has been provided for resolving such dispute.” 7. The petitioners further, have alleged that instead of complying with the above mentioned Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000, notice No. REV-1/95-C/290-301 dated 30.03.2001 was issued by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chumukedima Nagaland restricting construction/development along the National Highway. The landowners, thereafter, being aggrieved submitted a representation dated 17.04.2001. The said representation was further supplemented by another representation dated 06.11.2002. The petitioners further, have alleged that instead of complying with the above mentioned Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000, notice No. REV-1/95-C/290-301 dated 30.03.2001 was issued by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chumukedima Nagaland restricting construction/development along the National Highway. The landowners, thereafter, being aggrieved submitted a representation dated 17.04.2001. The said representation was further supplemented by another representation dated 06.11.2002. Subsequent thereto, vide letter No. LD-3/2001/1621-22 dated 08.01.2003 issued by the Revenue Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur District, Nagaland, the land-owners were allowed to go ahead with the construction/development work without disturbing the proposed four-lane of National Highway-39 (now National Highway-29). It has been further mentioned in the writ petition that by letter No. NHAI/PIU/GHY/MC/2005/15 dated 03.05.2005 issued by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways) at Guwahati, a direction was issued to the Revenue Officer, Dimapur and Kohima, Nagaland for preparation of Detailed Project Report from Dimapur to Kohima Section of NH-39 and initiation of land acquisition proceedings for the proposed project. In the said letter it was mentioned that the fund will be available after submission/valuation of the land and property as per the norms to the District Authority. 8. In the emergency executive meeting of the Adhoc Land Owners Committee National Highway-39 held on 23rd May, 2005 the committee decided to communicate about the rate of land compensation and other related matters after holding proper discussion with concerned land-owners only. Accordingly a representation was submitted to the Deputy Commission (Administration). The said representation was forwarded as per the verbal instruction of the Revenue Officer to intimate him the rate of land compensation to the affecting landowners while widening the NH-39 to convert it into four-laning road. 9. Subsequent thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had issued Notification No. REV-13/93-D/3238-67 dated 10.06.2005 directing the general public/patta holders/land-owners from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima that no new construction either permanent or temporary including building sheds, fencing wells etc. would be allowed within 30 meters road width i.e. within 15 meters from the center of the road. It has been further mentioned in the said Notification that no compensation will be entertained in case of their non compliance of the above notification. 10. would be allowed within 30 meters road width i.e. within 15 meters from the center of the road. It has been further mentioned in the said Notification that no compensation will be entertained in case of their non compliance of the above notification. 10. The Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kohima, National Highway Division had prepared and submitted a DPR for improvement of the city portion of Dimapur city of NH-39 (Old) from Nagaland Gate (Km 106.0 to Km 124.20) to Patkai Bridge (Km 124.200) of NH-39 (Old) in the State of Nagaland in EPC mode in September 2016 to the Ministry of Shipping Road Transport & Highways, Government of India. The work was thereafter allotted to the respondent no. 9 sometime in the month of July, 2017. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 9 started widening the road and construction in the month of October, 2018. In that process, the private lands belonging to the petitioners in the stretch of road from Purana Bazar, Dimapur to Chumukedima, Nagaland were alleged to be encroached by the respondent Authorities. 11. The petitioners, thereupon, being aggrieved, held a meeting on 08.03.2019 and decided to revive the union in the name of NH-29 and the Land-Owners Union (Purana Bazar to Chumukedima), which is the petitioner No. 1 in the instant proceeding. Thereupon, they submitted a Memorandum No. NH-29, LOU/DC/M-2, dated 01.05.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur with a prayer for adequate compensation prior to execution of work by assessing market value of the land. It was also brought to the notice of the District Administration the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 passed in WP(C)/98(K)/2000. The petitioners were surprised and shocked to know from the District Administration that no land compensation for damage of properties shall be paid to the land-owners as it is not part of the package. The District Authority further informed the petitioners that the respondent Authorities had decided to invoke the principle of Right of Way even in private lands/private properties along NH-29 for implementation of the road project. 12. The District Authority further informed the petitioners that the respondent Authorities had decided to invoke the principle of Right of Way even in private lands/private properties along NH-29 for implementation of the road project. 12. Taking into account that the petitioners’ lands have been encroached and there was no compensation being paid and the constitutional right of the petitioners to their properties, having been taken away without due process, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to make detailed assessment of the land acquired and the damage to properties; to direct the respondents to pay adequate compensations as per the prevalent market value; for a direction to pay adequate compensation as per prevalent rate on the properties which were damaged by the respondents; for a direction to the respondents to pay additional 15% of the compensation for compulsory acquisition of the petitioners’ land; for a direction to pay 100% solatium to the petitioners for the mental agonies/mental hurts; for a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the whole process of payment of compensation to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of Judgment & Order of this Court; for a direction to the respondents to pay penal interest in the event of delay in payment of the compensation etc. 13. The instant writ petition upon being filed, notice was issued returnable by 5 weeks. It appears from the records that the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 20.04.2021. In the said affidavit-in-opposition it was contended interalia that the instant writ petition is not maintainable taking into account that the petitioners have to prove that they had lands, had right title and interest over the lands used in the four-laning road in NH-29 and that their properties were damaged during the four-laning construction constituted outside the Right of Way. It was contended that these are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. It was also mentioned that the petitioners’ claim are on the basis of the land pattas/land documents purportedly issued by the District authority and or various local authorities which are not maintainable in the eye of law. It was contended that these are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. It was also mentioned that the petitioners’ claim are on the basis of the land pattas/land documents purportedly issued by the District authority and or various local authorities which are not maintainable in the eye of law. It was mentioned that the order dated 17.02.1995 issued by the District Administration, Dimapur asking to submit details of their establishment pertains to private land located outside Right of Way and the same may be issued only in the eventuality of extra land that may be required to be acquired for the purpose of the said road. It was further mentioned that the petitioners did not have any issue in spite of the order dated 30.03.2001 issued by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chumukedima, Nagaland restricting construction of the development along the National Highways as regards the letter No. LD-3/2001/1621-22 dated 08.01.2003. It was stated that the letter would clearly show that the Revenue Officer though allowed the land-owners to go ahead with development/construction works but without disturbing the proposed NH-39 four-laning Highway measuring 27 meters i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre of the road on both sides. It was mentioned that the letter dated 03.05.2005 issued by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Guwahati pertains to land acquisition from Khatkhati to Patkai Bridge (via Seithekema Village), which is referred to as the Dimapur Bypass Road, and has therefore, no application to the present facts. In respect to the letter dated 10.06.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland it was clarified that the Deputy Commissioner had wrongly mentioned it as 30 meters; it should be 27 meters i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre of the road on both sides. On the question of the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 in WP(C)/98(K)/2000, it has been mentioned that the said judgment would have no application in as much as in the instant case no private land is required for the construction of four-lane for the road expansion. It was mentioned that the four-lane widening was carried out within the Right of Way belonging to the National Highway and therefore, the above judgment rendered by this Court had no application as the State respondents did not use any card beyond the Right of Way reserve of 27 meters. It was mentioned that the four-lane widening was carried out within the Right of Way belonging to the National Highway and therefore, the above judgment rendered by this Court had no application as the State respondents did not use any card beyond the Right of Way reserve of 27 meters. Further to that it has been mentioned that the concerned respondent Authorities had issued public notice in respect to the proposed road construction by way of newspaper publication on 30.07.2017. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide an order dated 01.09.2017 and 12.09.2017 set up a committee comprising of the EAC, Chumukedima, Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) and the LRSO, Dimapur to verify the encroachment of the National Highway from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima and accordingly joint-verification was conducted on and from 18.09.2017 onwards in the presence of the EAC, Chumukedima, EAC, Revenue, Dimapur, Executive Engineer, PWD and Staff, LRSO, National Highway representatives, the Chairman, GBs, members of Purana Bazar, Naharbari, Darogapathar, Chekiye, Diphupar, Model Village and Souvima. Thereupon, the LRSO submitted verification report along with the list of all the encroachers. It was stated that the respondent Authorities had decided to invoke the principle of Right of Way even in private lands and properties along the NH-29 for implementation of the road project. It is reiterated that the question of land acquisition in respect to private land did not arise as the four-lane Highway expansion was carried out within the Right of Way belonging to the National Highway. It is under such circumstances submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation in the present set of facts in as much as no private land was taken by the State Government. 14. It would therefore, be seen from a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 that their specific stand is that the concerned respondents have not encroached upon any private land but have only exercised their right on the basis of the principle of Right of Way which was 27 meters i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre of the road on each side. 15. To the said affidavit-in-opposition an affidavit-in-reply was filed denying the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition. 15. To the said affidavit-in-opposition an affidavit-in-reply was filed denying the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition. It was mentioned that the present four-lane widening of NH-39 from Purana Bazar, Dimapur to Chumukedima was constructed by encroaching the land of the petitioners and destruction of the standing properties without payment of compensation. It was mentioned that the construction was carried out outside the original Right of Way belonging to the National Highway by encroaching the land of the petitioners and destruction of their properties. The action of the respondents was in clear violation to the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 passed in WP(C)/98(K)/2000. 16. The respondent No. 2 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein various preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the writ petition. It was the specific and categorical stand of the respondent No. 2 that in the Detailed Project Report for improvement of Kohima and Dimapur town submitted by the Chief Engineer, PWD, National Highway on 09.09.2016 for Rs. 465.31/-crores, it was mentioned that no additional land was required and cost towards the land acquisition was mentioned as ‘zero’ for the work of improvement of the city portion of Dimapur City. Further to that in the sanctioned process for projects costing Rs. 100 to 500 Crore, has to be appraised before a standing Finance Committee comprising of Secretary (RT&H), Secretary (DoE, Ministry of Finance), Chief Engineer (NER-MoRTH), Chief Engineer (PWD, NH), Nagaland, etc. It was also mentioned in the report that there was no land acquisition required and no environmental clearance is also required. Further, in the said affidavit-in-opposition it was stated that the land acquisition is a subject matter of the Government of Nagaland. The respondent No. 2 had sanctioned the project keeping in view that land is not required for the project as the encumbrance free land was made available by means of an order of the appropriate authority of the State Government of Nagaland, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland who had done so based on the record available in the Revenue Department that the land belongs to the Government. It was mentioned that the writ petition is liable to be outrightly dismissed by this Court with exemplary costs upon the petitioners in as much as if the instant writ petition is entertained, other people with vested interest may file similar writ petitions on other infrastructure projects which would eventually affect the development works to be taken up by the Government for upliftment of socio-economic conditions of the people of Nagaland in particular and the people of North-Eastern States in general. The portion of the DPR that is mentioned in the writ petition and the Main Report and Cost Estimate by the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Kohima (NH Division) is enclosed as Annexure-‘I’ to the said affidavit-in-opposition. The records further reveal that at the submission of DPR, the requirement for land acquisition and compensation for damages was not incorporated in the DPR. 17. This matter came up before this Court on 16.03.2022. This Court after hearing the matter at length directed the concerned respondent Authorities, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to file an affidavit bringing on record the basis on which the Government of Nagaland claims the Right of Way in respect to the road had been and is 27 meters. The record further reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland had on 15.09.2022 filed an affidavit in compliance with the order dated 16.03.2022. 18. The said affidavit is very pertinent in deciding the instant dispute. It has been mentioned that the Works & Housing Department, Government of Nagaland vide letter No. WH/NH-39 (A) dated 10.02.1999 had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to issue notification reserving 30 meters of land width along the National Highway-39. On the basis, thereafter, Notification No. REV-13/93-D/917-28, dated 28.04.1999 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur notifying that 30 metres width is kept as road reserve along the NH-39, 110 km to 123 km at Purana Bazar to Chumukedima Highway, and a copy was given to all the Chairman/GBs along the Purana Bazar to Chumukedima for information. On the basis, thereafter, Notification No. REV-13/93-D/917-28, dated 28.04.1999 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur notifying that 30 metres width is kept as road reserve along the NH-39, 110 km to 123 km at Purana Bazar to Chumukedima Highway, and a copy was given to all the Chairman/GBs along the Purana Bazar to Chumukedima for information. Thereupon, the Government of Nagaland’s Works & Housing Department (Roads & Bridges) vide letter No. WH-NH-39 (A)/98 dated 09.02.2000 had written to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur on the assessment of compensation issue of notice for reservation of land for NH-39, 110123 km section and it was decided by the Government that no compensation will be paid for private buildings and other structures falling within the road reserve area. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was instructed to proceed for eviction against encroachers within the 27 meters road width i.e. 13.5 meters on either side from the centre line and to take possession of the same. It was mentioned that due process may also be undertaken to hand over 27 meters road width i.e. 13.5 meters on either side from the centre line to the BRTF. 19. Subsequent to the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide a Notification dated 18.02.2000 notified the public/land-owners from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima that no individuals/land-owners is allowed to make development/construction within the road reserve on NH-39 and copy was given to all the Chairman/GBs along the Purana Bazar to Chumukedima for information. In the said affidavit it has been mentioned that after the 27 State Land Acquisition Authority in its meeting held on 19.11.2016 as additional agenda 27/19 point 1 had observed that many buildings and permanent structures were coming up on both sides of the road from Purana Bazar to Chumukedima, which would disturb the construction of the four-lane road. As such the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was directed to issue a strict order preventing individuals from constructing permanent structures within 13.5 meters on both sides of the road. It was also mentioned in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that the four-laning road widening of NH-39 i.e. 110 km-123 kms at Purana Bazar to Chumukedima Highway was done within the road reserve for the National Highway. 20. The record further reveals that the petitioners have also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner. It was also mentioned in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that the four-laning road widening of NH-39 i.e. 110 km-123 kms at Purana Bazar to Chumukedima Highway was done within the road reserve for the National Highway. 20. The record further reveals that the petitioners have also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the said affidavit-in-reply, it was mentioned that the reservation of additional lands for the Right of Way was done by the State Government Officials without acquiring the land. It has also been mentioned that though road is reserved for National Highway but the Revenue Authority of the State of Nagaland is still receiving Revenue in respect to the land in question and in that regard have brought on record, a receipt dated 03.06.2022. 21. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court take into consideration the respective submissions made by the parties. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2022 an affidavit was filed in compliance thereto by the respondent No. 8. It is clear that at the instance of the Secretary, Works & Housing the original Right of Way was increased to 27 meters, i.e. 13.5 meters on either side from the centre of the road without any acquisition of land. He submitted that in terms with Article 371 (A) of the Constitution of India all the lands of the State of Nagaland belong to the general public or individuals except those lands acquired by the State Government after payment of land compensation by following the due process of law as such lands which have been donated. He further submitted that the petitioners hold patta over the lands which have been issued either by the District Administration or by the Village Authorities as empowered to do so. Under such circumstances the petitioners have a permanent heritable, transferable right as well as right to occupancy over the land in question. This right of the petitioners is a constitutional right under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution and as such the said right over the lands in question cannot be taken away in the manner as has been done in the instant case by making a reservation without any compliance to any provisions of law. This right of the petitioners is a constitutional right under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution and as such the said right over the lands in question cannot be taken away in the manner as has been done in the instant case by making a reservation without any compliance to any provisions of law. The learned counsel submitted that taking into account the public interest, the petitioners are not asking for returning the lands although they have been inflicted with huge miseries on account of them being forcefully dispossessed and their constructions carried out with huge expenditures have been demolished and as such the respondent Authorities are bound to compensate the petitioners in terms with the relevant provisions of law. He submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.09.2000 held that if a land is required to be taken for the purpose of construction of a four-lane, the National Highways Act, 1956 ought to have been resorted to rather than forcefully dispossessing the petitioners in the name of reserving the land for Right of Way. He submits that the Right of Way, if required to be enlarged, taking into account the need for widening of the road by the Government and if the said enlargement of Right of Way encroaches upon the land belonging to the petitioners upon which they have been offered with a right by issuance of patta, the petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms with the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 or even under the provisions of the Nagaland (Acquisition and Requisition) Act, 1965. He further submitted that the action of the respondent Authorities in forcefully dispossessing the petitioners and demolishing their constructions have endured huge miseries upon the petitioners and thereby have also violated the human rights of the petitioners. 22. On the other hand, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG submitted that the Government has allotted land pattas to the petitioners and as such the Government is the owner of the land. Being the owner of the land, the Government has the right to reserve any portion of the land for the Right of Way. 22. On the other hand, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG submitted that the Government has allotted land pattas to the petitioners and as such the Government is the owner of the land. Being the owner of the land, the Government has the right to reserve any portion of the land for the Right of Way. The question of compensation to be paid to the petitioners does not arise at all as the lands which have been used for the purpose of widening of the NH-39 falls within the reservation area of 27 meters which was done as far back as the year 1999. She submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the same then, and as such the instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The Additional AG further submitted that the present petitioners cannot take the help of the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 passed in WP(C)/98(K)/2000 on the ground that the present petitioners were not the petitioners in the said proceedings. 23. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, this Court would also take note of the submission of Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel in reply to the submission made by the Additional AG. He submitted that the question of delay or laches do not arise taking into account that initially there was a notice given in the year 1998, whereby the petitioners were asked to submit the details pertaining to compensation. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners or their predecessors in interest have in detail submitted their documents. Immediately thereafter, the State of Nagaland initiated proceedings under the Nagaland Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 which was interfered with by this Court by the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 passed in WP(C)/98(K)/2000. Thereupon, although there was notice being issued as regards reservation of land not to raise any construction in the year 2000 but upon representation being submitted, the Revenue Officer, Dimapur had clarified to that effect that the petitioners’ as their predecessors in interest could raise constructions. Thereupon, although there was notice being issued as regards reservation of land not to raise any construction in the year 2000 but upon representation being submitted, the Revenue Officer, Dimapur had clarified to that effect that the petitioners’ as their predecessors in interest could raise constructions. He further submitted that after a passage of 16 to 17 years the respondent Authorities have woken up and have forcefully dispossessed the petitioners in 2018, by demolishing their immovable properties constructed thereupon, and immediately thereupon, the petitioners have submitted a representation and the representation having not being addressed to by the concerned respondent Authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court in 2019. Under such circumstances, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question of delay or laches do not arise. The learned senior counsel further submitted that some of the petitioners in the original proceedings, i.e. WP(C)/98(K)/2000 are a part of the instant writ petition. Further to that the other petitioners are successors in interest of the original petitioners. He further reiterated that the reservation of Right of Way by the respondent Authorities can only be done upon acquiring the land from the petitioners by following the due process and paying compensation, which have not been done in the instant case. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 2 had sanctioned the amount to be paid on the basis of the DPR submitted by the State of Nagaland and also upon the certification given by the Revenue Authorities of the State of Nagaland to the effect that there is no requirement on account of land acquisition expenses. On a specific query being made, he further submitted that land acquisition for the instant project process is a subject matter of the State Government of Nagaland and the MoRTH has sanctioned project keeping in view the materials presented by the implementing Agency i.e. State PWD, Nagaland that the land is not required for the Project. However, he submitted that taking into consideration that the State Government is only the implementing Agency for the construction of the road in question but the National Highway falls within the domain of the respondent No. 2. 25. However, he submitted that taking into consideration that the State Government is only the implementing Agency for the construction of the road in question but the National Highway falls within the domain of the respondent No. 2. 25. Upon perusal of the materials on record and taking note of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners let this Court first take into account the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional AG as regards delay and laches in filing the instant writ petition. It appears from the records that the issue as regards the right to reserve the land for Right of Way has been continuously in dispute. This can be seen from issuance of eviction notice under the provisions of the Nagaland Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971, and the indifference by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000 whereby it was held that the said land in question upon which the eviction notices were issued were not public lands and the appropriate authority was obligated to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land either by publication of public notices envisaged under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 or under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1967. It further appears, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the year 2000 there were notifications issued to the effect that as regards the reservation of land for Right of Way for 27 meters, i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre of the road on either side but upon representations being submitted the Revenue Officer, Dimapur had permitted the persons interested to carry out constructions. It further appears that thereupon that for the next 16 to 17 years there was nothing done by the concerned respondent Authorities and no steps were taken by the respondent Authorities in terms with the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2000. It was only in the year 2018 that the petitioners have been dispossessed forcefully and their constructions were demolished for which the petitioners have immediately after forming the Union, which is the petitioner No. 1 had submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner and thereupon and having not got any redressal to their grievances approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Taking into account that the petitioners were all along enjoying their rights and benefits over their land and properties and that they were only dispossessed in the year 2018 along with demolition of their constructions, and the writ petition having been filed immediately thereupon this Court is of the opinion that the submission made by the learned Additional AG that the writ petitions suffer from delay and laches is misconceived. Further, the facts narrated hereinabove would also show that the dispute in question have been continuing between the State of Nagaland and the land owners over the right of the State reserve land on the ground of enlarging the Right of Way. 26. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent Authorities in the name of reserving the Right of Way can transgress upon the patta lands of the petitioners without payment of any compensation. At this stage, it may also be relevant to take note that in the State of Nagaland there are some lands which are Gvernment lands whereupon cadastral survey have been done. In respect to such lands, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 is applicable. Upon such Government lands the Deputy Commissioner, upon receiving approvals from the competent authority grants pattas. Section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for short, ‘The Regulation’) empowers the State Government to make Rules amongst others for disposal of Government lands by way of grant of lease as otherwise of such lands. On the basis of Section 12 of the said Regulation, Settlement Rules have been framed. Rule 2 (d) of the Settlement Rules defines a periodic lease to mean except in the case of town lands a lease granted for a period longer than one year and in case of town lands a lease for a period longer than three years. It has also been mentioned that in so far it is consistent with any restrictions, conditions and limitations contained therein, a periodic lease, the term of which is not less than 10 years conveys to the lessee the rights of a landowner as defined in The Regulation. In the instant case, some of the petitioners herein have been allotted the periodic lease for a period of more than 10 years. In the instant case, some of the petitioners herein have been allotted the periodic lease for a period of more than 10 years. In this regard, if this Court further takes into account Rule 64 (c) of the Settlement Rules it stipulates that the periodic lease for town lands means a lease which is granted for more than three years and which if granted for not less than 10 years conveys a permanent, i.e. heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in the land, subject always to the due payment of land-revenue and local taxes, cesses, or rates, to the reservation in favour of Government of all quarries, mines, minerals, mineral oils and all buried treasure, to the absolute forfeiture of the lessee's interest in the land on his refusal to take the renewal of the lease on the expiry of its term, and to the special conditions of any engagement into which the land holder may have entered with Government. Therefore, it would be seen that a person who holds a periodic lease or a patta issued by the Deputy Commissioner has a permanent, heritable and transferable right for use and occupancy of the land in question. 27. This Court also needs to take into account that in the State of Nagaland all lands are not Government lands. There are lands which are not cadastrally surveyed. These lands are private lands. In respect of such lands Government of Nagaland do not collect any revenue over such lands. However, transfer of such lands takes place with the consent of the Village Council and written records of such transfer are being maintained by the Village Council in terms with Section 15(1)(4) of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978. On the basis of such records maintained, the Village Council issues certificate acknowledging the rights of the purchaser(s). 28. In the instant case, some of the lands fall within the cadastrally surveyed Government lands and some lands are private lands. The documents which have been enclosed to the instant writ petition are documents whereby the petitioners have claimed their rights over their respective lands on the basis of pattas/periodic leases being issued by the Deputy Commissioner with the approval of the Government or certificates being issued by the Village Council and commonly known as Village pattas. The documents which have been enclosed to the instant writ petition are documents whereby the petitioners have claimed their rights over their respective lands on the basis of pattas/periodic leases being issued by the Deputy Commissioner with the approval of the Government or certificates being issued by the Village Council and commonly known as Village pattas. In the said backdrop if this Court takes into consideration the submission made by the learned Additional AG to the effect that as the Government is the owner of the land in question the Government has a right to reserve the land in the name of Right of Way. This submission, if allowed, in the opinion of this Court would amount to defeating the rights of the persons who had been vested with rights on the basis of issuance of pattas/periodic leases by the Government through the Deputy Commissioner or the rights acquired by the persons on the basis of pattas being issued by Village Council. 29. This Court, while initially hearing the matter on 16.03.2022, enquired as to on what basis the respondent Authorities have reserved 27 meters, i.e. 13.5 meters from the center of the road and in that regard had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to file an affidavit. There is no material produced to show that the land reserved for Right of Way in question was originally 27 meters, or there was any acquisition of the rights from the persons who are enjoying periodic lease or rights acquired on the basis of the Village Council certificates. From the said affidavit the details which have already been mentioned herein above, it transpires that the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Works & Housing Department had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to issue notification reserving 30 meters of land width along its section of the Highway as road reserve, and also take necessary action to hand over 27 meters width of this section to Project Sewak for undertaking the work. This communication was issued on 10.02.1999. Most surprisingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur without following any due process issued a notification on 28.04.1999 notifying for general information of the public/land owners from Purana Bazar, Dimapur to Chumukedima that 30 meters width of the road is hereby kept as road reserve along the NH-39, 110-123 kms section of the Highway for four-laning of the portion of the Highway. Most surprisingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur without following any due process issued a notification on 28.04.1999 notifying for general information of the public/land owners from Purana Bazar, Dimapur to Chumukedima that 30 meters width of the road is hereby kept as road reserve along the NH-39, 110-123 kms section of the Highway for four-laning of the portion of the Highway. In doing so the Deputy Commissioner have not at all taken into account that the rights of the persons/the land-owners which stood vested on the basis of periodic lease being issued or on the basis of the Village Council certificates being issued, would be affected. No doubt the appropriate Government authority would have the power to acquire lands on account of public interest but in doing so if it affects the vested rights of the people/land-owners the same can only be done by following the procedure established under law. This aspect of the matter is clear from the constitutional mandate as stipulated under Article 300(A) of the Constitution. In this regard this Court would like to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 , wherein the Supreme Court after taking note of the various judgments previously rendered by the said Court held that the appellant could not have been forcefully dispossessed of her property without any authority, legal sanction and without following due process of law and depriving her payment of just compensation being the fundamental right on the date of forceful dispossession in 1967. It was further observed that in a democratic polity, governed by the Rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without a sanction of law. Further, it was observed that the State being a welfare State, governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided in the Constitution. Placing reliance to the Judgment in the case of State of Haryana Versus Mukesh Kumar reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404 , the Supreme Court in the said judgment in the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) observed that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. 30. Placing reliance to the Judgment in the case of State of Haryana Versus Mukesh Kumar reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404 , the Supreme Court in the said judgment in the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) observed that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. 30. Subsequent to that, in another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.B. Basnett Versus Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572 wherein the Supreme Court took up for consideration the question in the concerned facts as to whether the State had taken up process for acquisition and has followed the same in accordance with law. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 the Supreme Court held that it is the burden of the State to prove that there has been any acquisition of land as well as payment of compensation in the said case. As there were no documents placed on record as to whether there was any acquisition and the law being expropriatory in character the Supreme Court, after taking note of various judgments observed that the petitioners therein were entitled to not only mesne profits but also compensation if the State still wanted to retain the lands. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 as well as 19 and 20 being relevant are being quoted herein below: “13. That brings us to the question whether the process of acquisition had been followed in accordance with law. No notification has been shown to us of the intent to acquire land under Section 4, or any other declaration thereafter. In fact what is claimed before us, as also before the courts below, is that no records are available in respect of the acquisition process. This obviously puts the respondent State in a difficult situation, which was sought to be got over by only relying on a consent having been obtained for acquisition and the compensation having been paid, as determined. On the aspect of the compensation, only a covering letter is available, and not the actual receipt. We have also observed aforesaid that an unusual process of making payment in cash is claimed to have been adopted, and the amount is not an insignificant amount, if we look at the year of acquisition. On the aspect of the compensation, only a covering letter is available, and not the actual receipt. We have also observed aforesaid that an unusual process of making payment in cash is claimed to have been adopted, and the amount is not an insignificant amount, if we look at the year of acquisition. We even gave a further opportunity to the authorities to show, as to from which account this compensation was withdrawn by the Collector, but it appears that there is no proof even of the withdrawal of the amount, much less payment of the compensation. The letter dated 20.3.1980 of late Man Bahadur Basnett is no doubt a no- objection to the acquisition of land, but provided compensation was paid subsequently. This letter does not obviate the need to furnish proof of the process for acquisition of land or for the determination of compensation, under the said Act. There cannot be a presumption of acquisition without following the due process as envisaged under Sections 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 7(2) of the said Act. The burden was on the State to prove that the process as envisaged under the said Act was followed and the compensation paid. Not an iota of evidence has been laid in support of any of these aspects, except the willingness of late Man Bahadur Basnett to permit the land to be acquired on payment of compensation, the forwarding of the amount by the Land Revenue Department to the District Collector through a cheque, and thereafter a letter from the Collector/Respondent 1 stating that some receipt was being enclosed, acknowledging the payment in cash (without a receipt being found). There is, thus, absence of both primary and secondary evidence. 14. We may note that even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of any Act seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed. 15. It is also settled law that following the procedure of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (akin to Section 5(1) of the said Act) is mandatory, and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceeding would be vitiated. An entry into the premises based on such non-compliance would result in the entry being unlawful. An entry into the premises based on such non-compliance would result in the entry being unlawful. The law being expropriatory in character, the same is required to be strictly followed. The purpose of the notice is to intimate the interested persons about the intent to acquire the land. These provisions, as they read, of the said Act, thus, are also required to be so followed… 19. The result of the aforesaid would be that the respondents have failed to establish that they had acquired the land in accordance with law and paid due compensation. The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the possession of the land as also damages for illegal use and occupation of the same by the respondents, at least, for a period of three (3) years prior to the notice having been served upon them. We are strengthened in our observations on account of the judgment of this Court in LAO v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy, where it was held that the owner can be entitled to damages for wrongful use and possession of land in respect of which no notification is issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of possession till the date such notification is finally published. 20. We are conscious that the land is being used by the respondent State through respondent No.2 Department. That, however, does not give such a license to the State Government. We had endeavoured to refer the matter for mediation, to find an amicable solution, but that did not fructify. We, however, would like to give some time to the respondent- State to analyse the consequences of this judgment, and, in case they so desire, to acquire the land through a proper notification under the said Act, and to take proper recourse in law so as to enable them to keep the land. We grant three (3) months’ time from the date of the judgment for the respondent-State to make up their mind as to what they want to do. Would they still like to retain the land by issuing a proper notification, or would they like to surrender possession of the land. In either eventuality, the question of payment for use and occupation would still arise, which will have to be determined in accordance with law. Would they still like to retain the land by issuing a proper notification, or would they like to surrender possession of the land. In either eventuality, the question of payment for use and occupation would still arise, which will have to be determined in accordance with law. Mesne profits would be determined by a Court Commissioner, to be appointed by the trial court, as a relief in that behalf has been sought in the plaint itself.” 31. In the backdrop of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court and taking into account the facts involved wherein the State of Nagaland has failed to show any document that the road reserved for Right of Way was initially 27 meters and it being a specific case that by way of the Notification dated 28.04.1999, the road reserved for Right of Way was enlarged to 30 meters and no materials produced to the effect how the road reserve was enlarged without acquiring the land, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent Authorities, more particularly, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur could not have enlarged the Right of Way by reserving the existing road to 30 meters of width as road reserved along the NH-39, 110-123 kms section of the Highway for four-laning without following the due process/procedure of the law. The action of the respondent Authorities of reserving in the name of Right of Way without showing how the excess land was brought within the field of Right of Way therefore stands vitiated. 32. This Court while dictating the judgment had put a specific query upon the learned Additional AG as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as to whether they would like to retain the land. It has been submitted that the four-laning road has already been constructed and as such the question of returning the land to the landowners if there was any transgression to their rights do not arise. Further, the learned Additional AG also submitted that this Court would not be in a position to decide as to what compensation if any has to be paid taking into account that it would require the fact-finding as to whether the petitioners at all have any rights and if at all their rights have been affected. 33. Further, the learned Additional AG also submitted that this Court would not be in a position to decide as to what compensation if any has to be paid taking into account that it would require the fact-finding as to whether the petitioners at all have any rights and if at all their rights have been affected. 33. This Court duly agrees with the said submissions that this Court would not be in a position to decide as to whether the petitioners have any right over the lands or for that matter whether there has been transgression to their rights on account of reserving/widening of the road to 27 meters. This Court having already observed that the Deputy Commissioner could not have enlarged the road width without following the due process of law and without payment of compensation, in the interest of justice directs the concerned Deputy Commissioner to carry out the fact-finding enquiry. The learned Additional AG has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the entire stretch of land in NH-39 from 110-123kms section falls within the domain of the Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima as the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. 34. Considering the above, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: 1) This Court declares that the action of the Deputy Commissioner to enlarge the width of the road reserve to 27 meters, i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre in the stretch of road i.e., NH 39 from 110-123 kms section of the Highway from Dimapur to Chumukedima without carrying out any acquisition, and more particularly the notification dated 28.04.1999, consequently stands vitiated for not following the due process. The landowners, whose lands fall within 13.5 meters from the centre of the road in the said stretch of road, if affected, would be entitled to compensation as mandated under law. 2) Taking into account that this Court is not in a position to decide how much and which land of each of the petitioners or any of the land-owners have been affected, it would require a fact-finding inquiry. 2) Taking into account that this Court is not in a position to decide how much and which land of each of the petitioners or any of the land-owners have been affected, it would require a fact-finding inquiry. This Court directs the petitioners to submit their claims including their claims for destruction of their properties along with their land documents and other documents for verification before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and/or Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima before whose jurisdiction their lands fall within 45 days from the date of the instant order. Taking into account that only 230 petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and there may be other land owners who may have been affected, this Court further directs the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima to issue a notice in a news daily of wide circulation calling for any claims along with their documents for verification. The same should be done within 20 days from the date of the instant order. 3) On the basis of the claims as well as the documents so submitted, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and/or Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima and/or any person to whom the Deputy Commissioner deems fit to entrust but not below the rank of an Additional Deputy Commissioner, shall verify the said claims on the basis of the documents submitted within a period of six months from the date of the submission of the claim(s) by the person(s) interested. In filing the said claims the petitioners as well as the land-owners would be at liberty to also submit claims regarding their loss suffered on account of demolition of their properties. 4) Upon verification, if it is found that the petitioners or land owners have been affected on account of enlarging the width of the NH39, i.e., the 27 meters, i.e. 13.5 meters from the centre of the road in the stretch of road i.e., NH 39 from 110 km to 123 km section of the Highway from Dimapur to Chumukedima, then in that case the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and/or Deputy Commissioner, Chumukedima, in consultation with the State of Nagaland as well as the respondent No. 2 shall initiate proceeding for acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 by following the due process. 5) It is made clear that if in the circumstances, the petitioners and/or the land owners are aggrieved by the fact finding enquiry by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners and/or the land owners would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6) If the petitioners however, are aggrieved by the actions of the respondent Authorities in respect to entitlement and quantum of compensation, the petitioners can avail the remedies available under the National Highways Act, 1956. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands allowed to the extent as observed herein above.