JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. None appears for the respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 despite notice. [2.] By filing this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- (i) A direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Union of India) to show cause as to why they should not be directed to pay rental compensation along with interest for the period from the year 1997 till date on account of illegal occupation of his land. (ii) A direction to the respondents to conduct a Joint Verification to look into his claim and to direct the respondent No. 6 (Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai) to make assessment of the value of the land in accordance with law and to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay rental compensation from 1997 till date. (iii) To direct the respondent No.6 to issue fresh notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Re-settlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) and to further direct the respondent No. 6 to make an Award under the Act of 2013 and (iv) To issue any other writ, order(s) or directions as Court may deem fit and proper. [3.] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of a certain land measuring about 20,000 Sq.m located at Fulsora village area along the Lawngtlai – Diltlang – Parva road at Km. 139.50, which is covered under LSC No. 3/1990 dated 05.02.1990. The land was allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of garden by the Land Revenue & Settlement Department of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC), Kamalanagar, Mizoram as per the relevant provisions of law. The LSC was preceded by Temporary Pass No. 16/1987 dated 14.07.1987. [4.] According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 forcefully occupied his land by constructing Border Road Organization (BRO) camp from the year 1997 till date without his consent and without paying him any compensation. Prior to such illegal occupation, the petitioner contends that he had developed the said land for his livelihood and for sustaining his family. [4.] According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 forcefully occupied his land by constructing Border Road Organization (BRO) camp from the year 1997 till date without his consent and without paying him any compensation. Prior to such illegal occupation, the petitioner contends that he had developed the said land for his livelihood and for sustaining his family. [5.] On 14.04.2013, a joint verification was conducted on the land of the petitioner in the presence of Assistant Revenue Officer, CADC, the Village Council President concerned and the representatives of the BRO. The outcome of the joint verification report was conveyed to the Executive Member In-charge Revenue, CADC by the Assistant Revenue Officer, CADC vide his letter dated 14.04.2013. As per the said report, the BRO had occupied the land of the petitioner from the month of April, 1997. The assessment of compensation for an amount of Rs. 10,54,750/-towards crops and property damage was found to be justified and therefore, necessary action for payment of the said amount was recommended. The petitioner also obtained a certificate from the Senior Revenue Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC certifying the fact that no land lease was allotted or given to the BRTF/BRO over the LSC belonging to the petitioner till date. The certificate is dated 06.09.2018. Likewise, the petitioner also obtained a Non-Agreement Certificate from the same authority certifying that no agreement was reach between the petitioner and the BRTF/BRO over the LSC in question till date. [6.] The petitioner then on 23.08.2017 through his counsel served a legal notice to the respondent Union of India i.e., respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 claiming rental compensation for occupation of his land by the BRO from the year 1997 till the date of notice for an amount of Rs. 38,00,71,232/-. In reply to the legal notice, the respondents concerned wrote back on 12.12.2019 stating that the BRO had occupied only 9,500 Sq.m and that too, with the verbal consent of the petitioner and which was also confirmed in writing through NOC dated 10.11.2011. The BRO had also requested the respondent No. 6 and other authorities concerned for drawing up land acquisition proceeding as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act). However, due to certain technical problems, the process was delayed. The BRO had also requested the respondent No. 6 and other authorities concerned for drawing up land acquisition proceeding as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act). However, due to certain technical problems, the process was delayed. Subsequently, a preliminary notification was issued by the respondent No. 6 under the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Settlement) Act, 2016 (Act of 2016) and the respondent No. 6 was requested to expedite the matter. [7.] Against the legal notice dated 23.08.2017, yet another reply was made by the respondent Union of India stating that they had occupied only 8740 Sq.m. A joint survey was made on 14.04.2013 and a report was prepared and sent to the Executive Member In-charge, Revenue, CADC. Payment of rental charges claimed by the petitioner did not arise since his land was occupied by the BRO with the written consent of the petitioner and which was confirmed in writing by the NOC dated 10.11.2011. In fact, the sum and substance of the reply was similar to the reply made earlier on 12.12.2017. Aggrieved with reply and non-finalization of the acquisition proceedings despite issuance of preliminary notification on 01.06.2017 under the Act of 2016, the petitioner is before this Court. [8.] Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities have finalized the acquisition proceedings after issuing a second preliminary notification on 05.11.2019 under the Act of 2016. The respondent No. 6 prepared Draft Award No. 1/2020 dated 11.12.2020 and the same was approved by the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner has received the compensation assessed as his share on 22.06.2021. However, the petitioner has not been paid any rental compensation for the illegal occupation of his land from the month of April, 1997 up to the date on which the Draft Award No. 1/2020 was approved by the State Government i.e., 22.01.2021. He also submits that the petitioner has also not been paid the amount of interest, which he is entitled to for delayed payment of compensation as prescribed by Section 76 of the Act of 2016. [9.] Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel submits that the stand of the Union of India that the petitioner permitted them to occupy his land voluntarily since 1997 and therefore, the question of payment of rent does not arise cannot be accepted. [9.] Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel submits that the stand of the Union of India that the petitioner permitted them to occupy his land voluntarily since 1997 and therefore, the question of payment of rent does not arise cannot be accepted. Referring to the NOC dated 10.11.2011 enclosed by the respondent Union of India in their counter-affidavit, the learned counsel submits that the same was in respect of no objection of the petitioner for acquisition of his land by the BRTF/BRO. Nowhere in the said NOC has it been stated that the petitioner does not claim rental compensation or that he had given his land to the BRO for occupation free of cost. He therefore submits that a direction be made to the respondent authorities for assessing the rental compensation payable to the petitioner and for payment of the same along with interest for delayed payment under the provision of Section 76 of the Act of 2016. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Century Spinning And Manufacturing Company Ltd. And Another -Vs- The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council And Another. 1970 (1) SCC 582 (2) Olga Tellis And Others -Vs-Bombay Municipal Corporation And Others. (1985) 3 SCC 545 (3) R.L. Jain (D) BY LRS. -Vs-DDA And Others. (2004) 4 SCC 79 and (4) Judgment dated 14.02.2020 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020 (Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil -Vs-The State of Maharashtra & Others) [10.] Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Union of India on the other hand submits that in respect of the claim of the petitioner for rental compensation, there are serious disputed questions of fact involved. She submits that there is no consistency in the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as, in the writ petition, the petitioner claims rental compensation from the year 1997 while in the verification report, occupation of his land by the BRO was from the month of April, 1997. Again, the petitioner in his application dated 02.12.2015 submitted to the Revenue Officer, CADC, praying for issuance of land occupancy certificate by the BRO on his land had stated that the BRO/BRTF occupied his land since 01.09.1997. Again, the petitioner in his application dated 02.12.2015 submitted to the Revenue Officer, CADC, praying for issuance of land occupancy certificate by the BRO on his land had stated that the BRO/BRTF occupied his land since 01.09.1997. Apart from such inconsistencies, the learned CGC submits that the petitioner in fact allowed the BRO to occupy his land without claiming any rental compensation and free of cost which can be seen from the NOC signed by the petitioner himself on 10.11.2011. She submits that had the petitioner not permitted the BRO to occupy his land free of cost since 1997, there is no reason for him to serve a legal notice to the occupants of his land only on 23.08.2017. For the acquisition of 8740 Sq.m of land of the petitioner, the respondent Union of India have paid compensation as assessed by the respondent No. 6 vide Draft Award No. 1/2020 and which has been duly received by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot make any further claim other than what was paid to him already. She thus submits that the writ petition is without any merit and the same should be dismissed. [11.] Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate by relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 on 04.08.2020 submits that the respondent No. 6 has performed his duty as a Collector by preparing Draft Award No. 1/2020 and beyond such assessment, the issue of calculating rent is not his prerogative in absence of a decision in that regard. [12.] I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. With regard to the first prayer of the petitioner for payment of rent from the year 1997, it may be seen that as per the spot verification done on 14.04.2013, in which the Revenue authorities of the CADC, the Village Council President and the representatives of the BRO participated, it was found that the land of the petitioner was occupied by the BRO from the month of Aprill, 1997. Although the assessment made for the damages caused to the property and crops, amounting to Rs. 10,54,750/-was found to be genuine and reasonable, there is no mention about rental compensation due or otherwise to the petitioner. Although the assessment made for the damages caused to the property and crops, amounting to Rs. 10,54,750/-was found to be genuine and reasonable, there is no mention about rental compensation due or otherwise to the petitioner. There is also no material placed before this Court as to what transpire after the verification report was prepared and submitted to the Executive Member In-charge, Revenue, CADC on 14.04.2013. Later on, it was only through the legal notice served by the petitioner through his counsel on 23.08.2017 that the claim for rental compensation arose. According to the legal notice, rental compensation claimed by the petitioner was for occupation of his land measuring 20,000 Sq.m while according to the BRO only 9,500 Sq.m was occupied by them as per their reply dated 12.12.2019 and 8,740 Sq.m as per their reply dated 20.02.2018. Absence of the claim for rental compensation prior to the legal notice dated 23.08.2017 can perhaps have some bearing to the stand of the respondent Union of India that the petitioner had permitted them to occupy his land free of cost. The NOC dated 10.11.2011 does not disclose that the petitioner had permitted the BRO to occupy his land free of cost but at the same time, absence of any claim for rental compensation or any communication in that regard since April, 1997 till the legal notice of the petitioner dated 23.08.2017 would indicate that there may have been some arrangement made between the parties. Having regard to the rival claims of the parties, the same in my considered view has only invited the involvement of disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil (supra) and Century Spinning And Manufacturing Company Ltd. And Another (supra) held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred in entertaining matters which do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced. The ratio laid down is that there is no straight jacket formula to determine the existence or otherwise of disputed questions of fact and the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the rival claims on rental compensation in the instant case, in my considered view cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. It is therefore left open for the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the rival claims on rental compensation in the instant case, in my considered view cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. It is therefore left open for the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. [13.] In respect of the second prayer of the petitioner, it may be noticed that the respondent No. 6 has already prepared Draft Award No. 1/2020 dated 11.12.2020, which was approved by the State Government on 22.01.2021. The petitioner accordingly has received payment of the compensation on 22.06.2021. Therefore, the issue regarding acquisition of the petitioner’s land is no longer alive and has been answered. However, the right to receive further compensation depending upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No. 70/2018 filed by the State Government against the Judgment & Order of Coordinate Bench of this Court making the Act of 2016 to be not applicable in the State will remain. [14.] In respect of the third prayer of the petitioner, except for rental compensation, the issue is also no longer alive. As for the enhancement of the compensation to be received by the petitioner, the same would also depend upon the outcome of Writ Appeal No. 70/2018. [15.] Coming to the last prayer of the petitioner, it may be seen that the petitioner although having received compensation for acquisition of his land under the Act of 2016, has not received the interest amount that would be entitled to a land owner in terms of Section 76 of the Act of 2016. It is seen that Draft Award No. 1/2020 materialized during the pendency of this writ petition and the petitioner admittedly has not made any prayer for payment of interest under Section 76 by amending his prayer in the writ petition or by approaching the District Collector concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the District Collector concerned with an application for payment of interest under Section 76 of the Act of 2016 within a period of 1 (one) month from today. In the event, such an application is made, the District Collector shall make appropriate assessment in accordance with law within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of the application and then forward the assessment to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for arrangement of the required amount. In the event, such an application is made, the District Collector shall make appropriate assessment in accordance with law within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of the application and then forward the assessment to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for arrangement of the required amount. The respondents concerned on receiving the assessed amount shall within a period of 2 (two) months, deposit the amount before the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 then shall disburse the same to the petitioner without delay. [16.] In view of the conclusion arrived at as highlighted above, the other authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found to be relevant and therefore not discussed. [17.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.