Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1099 (GAU)

Mary v. Zoenpuii VS State of Mizoram

2025-06-24

MARLI VANKUNG

body2025
JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners, also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that they are the owners or the landed property at Tlabung-Kawrpuichhuah, and the respondents, for the purpose of improvement and upgradation of the Tlabung-Kawrpuichhuah Road 0.00 to 11.850 kms. to 2 Lane NH Standard under the Mizoram State Road-II Project (MSRP-II), to be funded by the World Bank, issued notification dated 13.08.2013 u/s 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department. 3. Accordingly, declaration u/s 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 04.02.2014 and thereafter, the respondent No. 4 passed the Draft Award No. 3 of 2014- 2015. Since, no date was indicated in the draft award, the petitioners in an application under RTI Act, was informed that the Draft Award No. 3 of 2014- 2015 was passed on 08.05.2015. The approval of the award was conveyed on 08.05.2015 and payment of the compensation to the petitioners was made on 31.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners sought for information through RTI, regarding the date of taking possession of the land for construction of Tlabung- Kawrpuichhuah Road, under the Mizoram State Road Project-II wherein as per the RTI reply dated 05.10.2018, it was stated that the date was on 13.08.2013. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that, since the petitioners received payment of the acquisition of the land on 31.05.2016, the interest of the delayed payment should be calculated from the date of taking possession of the land, i.e., 13.08.2013, in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel also submitted that after the issuance of notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners could no longer utilise their landed property. The learned counsel also submitted that after the issuance of notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners could no longer utilise their landed property. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the corrigendum made by the State respondents in the letter dated 11.12.2019, to the effect that the date of taking possession of the land was mistakenly replied in the information given under the RTI Act dated 13.08.2013, which is the date of issuance of notice u/s 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the correct date of taking possession of the land of the petitioners for construction of Tlabung- Kawrpuichhuah Road is the date in which an agreement was signed with the landowners, was made after the filing of the writ petition on 07.11.2019, and thus the corrigendum was made as an afterthought. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that, if there is no clarity on the date of possession of the landed property, the date of taking possession should be considered as the date on the date the Draft Award No. 3 of 2014-2015 was made, and approved on 08.05.2015. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has cited the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lila Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2004) 9 SCC 337 (Para 19) and State of Madras Vs. K.N. Shanmugha Mudaliar and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 406 (Para 4). The learned counsel thus submitted that in the event of no clarity on the date of possession, the interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be calculated from 08.05.2015 till the date of payment on 31.05.2016. 6. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the information furnished to the petitioners by the SPIO, PIU, PWD vide letter No. MSRP-17/PIU/RTI/2017/36 dated 05.10.2018, stating that the taking of possession of the land of the petitioners for construction of the Tlabung-Kawrpuichhuah Road was on 13.08.2013, was an inadvertent error, and 13.08.2013 is actually the date of issuing public notice u/s 41) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Govt. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the date of signing the agreement is the correct date of taking possession of the land, which can be clearly construed, from the terms of the agreement signed by the petitioners and the respondents, i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer, Project Implementation Unit, Public Works Department on 31.05.2016. 7. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that, in terms of the said agreement signed by both the parties on 31.05.2016, it is clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs. 15,36,072/- would be handed over to the landowners by the SLA0, PIU, PWD, and the landowners would also hand over the land to the Government. She therefore submits that it has been clearly mentioned therein that the land was handed over to the respondents on 31.05.2016 and payment was also made on the same day. Therefore, the interest claimed for by the petitioners u/s 34 is not maintainable, since the payment was made on the day the land was handed over to the respondents. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that a notice u/s 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act does not indicate taking possession of the landed properties of the petitioners. 8. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record. It is not a disputed fact that the landed properties of the petitioners were acquired by the respondents for the construction, improvement, and upgradation of Tlabung- Kawrpuichhuah Road 0.00 to 11.850 kms. to 2 Lane NH Standard under the Mizoram State Road-II Project (MSRP-II), to be funded by the World Bank pursuant to the notification dated 13.08.2013 u/s 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department. It is also not disputed that a Draft Award No. 3 of 2014-2015 was passed and duly approved by the State Government on 08.05.2015. The main bone of contention is with regards to the date when the respondents had taken possession of the landed property of the petitioners. 9. It is also not disputed that a Draft Award No. 3 of 2014-2015 was passed and duly approved by the State Government on 08.05.2015. The main bone of contention is with regards to the date when the respondents had taken possession of the landed property of the petitioners. 9. This court finds that as per Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the authority who wish to acquire any landed property is to issue notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the purpose of issuing notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is to notify the intention of the Government to acquire the land. Furthermore, Section 4(2) empowers authorized officers to enter the land, survey it, set out boundaries, and perform other necessary actions to assess its suitability for the intended public notice. Thus, this Court finds that a notice u/s 41) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the first step in the process to ascertain whether the landowners are entitled to compensation if the land is ultimately acquired. 10. It is only after the issuance of notice u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act that the Draft Award No. 3 of 2014-2015 was made and duly approved on 08.05.2015. This Court has also perused the terms of the agreement made between the petitioners and the respondent authority on 31.05.2016, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that, on the receipt of the amount of Rs. 15,36,072/- the land would be handed over to the Government. This Court finds that there is no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement dated 31.05.2016, which is not under challenge or disputed in the instant writ petition. In view of the above, this Court finds that the date which is mentioned as 13.08.2013 in the RTI reply dated 05.10.2018 appears to be a genuine mistake, without any mala fide intention, and this court finds it proper to accept the explanation given by the authority in the letter dated 11.12.2019, which is annexed in the Annexture No. 1 in the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents. 11. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view, that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for payment of interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from 13.08.2013 (the alleged date of possession as per the information, received on 05.10.2018 under RTI Act) till the date of payment of the awarded amount on 31.05.2016. 12. Accordingly, the WP(C) No. 165 of 2019 stands dismissed and disposed of.