J UDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. We have heard Mr. C. Lalramzuava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Lalbuatsaiha, learned Advocate for the appellants/MADC in all these appeals and Ms. D.T. Azyu, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 in Writ Appeal No.2/2025; for the respondent Nos.1 to 74 in Writ Appeal No.3/2025 and for the respondent Nos.1 to 51 in Writ Appeal No.4/2025. 2. All these writ appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 3. These appeals have been filed on a short question, namely, whether deduction of 10% cess from the compensation paid to the respondents for the acquired land is justified? 4. The learned Single Judge has held that once the administrative cost @ 2.5% of the total value of the land has already been realized from the respondents, 10% cess could not have been levied on the respondents/landholders. That apart, it was held that there is nothing in the Act or the Rules governing the field, which would justify deduction of cess from the compensation, as in any circumstance, it is only deductible from the value of the land, which is not akin to compensation. 5. To state the facts in short for a proper understanding of these appeals, it is stated that the respondents were owners of the land through which a road was constructed but the respondents were not paid any compensation. They approached this Court vide WP(C) No.160/2016 and WP(C) No.224/2016, wherein a direction was issued to the appellants herein to conduct a spot verification to find out whether the road had been constructed through the land of the respondents and if it were, to prepare a supplementary award for acquisition of land of the respondents. 6. Though pursuant to the orders , verification was done and assessment was made but it was only with respect to a small portion of the road which was constructed, i.e. only for 20 Kms, and, therefore, the names of the respondents did not figure in that assessment. 7. 6. Though pursuant to the orders , verification was done and assessment was made but it was only with respect to a small portion of the road which was constructed, i.e. only for 20 Kms, and, therefore, the names of the respondents did not figure in that assessment. 7. The respondents, therefore, had again filed a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C) No.53/2017, which was decided on 02.05.2018 directing the appellants herein to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2013”) to assess the compensation payable to the respondents herein and if the appellants wanted to vacate the land, to pay compensation to the respondents for the damages within a time-frame. Pursuant thereto, the award was prepared but 10% of the cost of the land was deducted towards cess. 8. The respondents challenged the afore-noted deduction along with other grievances which were allowed but the present appeals only question the decision of the learned Single Judge in not sustaining the deduction of 10% of the cost of the land towards cess on twin grounds of there being no provision for deduction from the compensation of the land, which might not always be akin to the cost of the land, and that such recoverable cess was only for the purposes of administrative expenses which had already been taken care of by deducting 2.5% of the compensation amount by way of administrative charges, which fact is amply demonstrated by the summary of the award, kept at Page 63 of Writ Appeal No.2/2025. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the relevant provisions of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Land and Revenue) Act, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2018”) in detail. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the relevant provisions of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Land and Revenue) Act, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2018”) in detail. Sections 22 & 23 of the afore-noted Act of 2018 is being extracted herein for the sake of completeness:- “22.(1) No land survey, spot verification and measurement over any land allotted to any person by the District Council in accordance with the Mars Autonomous District Council (Non-Agricultural Land Settlement) Act, 2011 and the Mara Autonomous District Council (Agricultural Land Settlement) Act, 2011 or any other law in force in the District Council area shall be carried on by any person, Governmental or Non Governmental Department or Agency for any purpose except by the District Council. (2) In case any land is necessary for any purpose to be surveyed, verified or measured etc, the owner of the land in question shall apply for the same in writing before the concerned authority under the District Council and the concerned authority shall perform such required work as and when it deems necessary and in the manner as it may deem appropriate. In certain care, the concerned authority may on its own initiative perform such needful work under this section as it may find necessary in presence or consultation with the land owner or otherwise. 23.(1) The Executive Committee or concerned authority in its behalf may, by Public Notification or by Official Order levy or collect, fix or control revenue, cess, costs and charges payable by any land owner or pass holder and may prescribe the manner and period in which such revenue, cess, costs band charges are to be paid and collected. 23.(1) The Executive Committee or concerned authority in its behalf may, by Public Notification or by Official Order levy or collect, fix or control revenue, cess, costs and charges payable by any land owner or pass holder and may prescribe the manner and period in which such revenue, cess, costs band charges are to be paid and collected. (2) In exercise of the power vested to it by sub-section (1) of this section and subject to the provision of section 22 of this Act, the Executive Committee or concerned authority shall be competent, by Public Notification or by Official Order: (a) to collect revenue from any land/pass holder as it may deem fit and reasonable; (b) to collect and levy cess to the extent of 15% or cost (s) or charge(s) which may be increased or decreased and fixed by the Executive Committee from time to time by Official Order or Notification from any land holder from the value of the land and on any other ground and in the manner as may be prescribed from time to time for the conduct of spot verification, survey and measurement or any other administrative work or otherwise as provided and envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 22 of this Act on certain and special occasion as the case may be; (c) to collect such fees, costs or charges for mutation from any land or pass holder; (d) to exempt certain land/pass holder from payment of revenue of other charges on sufficient and reasonable ground.” 10. A bare reading of Section 23(2)(b) provides that to collect and levy cess to the extent of 15% or costs or charges, which may be increased or decreased and fixed by the Executive Committee from time to time by official order or notification from any landholder from the value of the land and on any other ground and in the manner as may be prescribed from time to time for the conduct of spot verification, survey and measurement or any other administrative work or otherwise as provided and envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act on certain and special occasions, as the case may be. This, therefore, clearly demonstrates that there could be levy of cess to the extent of 15%, which could be varied either by way of cost or by way of charge and such power to levy cess would also be for other grounds, like conducting spot verification, survey and measurement and for other administrative works. Thus, this levy of cess could be as a tax on the land, as money recovered for covering the administrative expenses or for any other purpose in consonance with Section 22 of the Act of 2018. (Emphasis provided) 11. We have also examined the Award No.5, Additional-1/2021, which, after taking into account the circumstance under which the additional award was prepared has taken into account the claims of the respondents; the market value of the land; the structures appurtenant to the land so acquired, the standing crops, trees, etc.; the apportionment of award as also10% cess, which was remitted to the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, MADC, Siaha as cess on the value of the land w.e.f. 19.09.2019 vide notification dated 23.09.2019. Paragraph 9 of the Award No.5, Additional-1/2021is being extracted herein:- “ 9. 10% cess: As provided by sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Land & Revenue) Act, 2018, 10% (Ten per cent) of land values shall be remitted to Land Revenue & Settlement Department, MADC Siaha as Cess on the value of land with effect from 19.09.2019 vide Notification Memo No.MADC.G.11020/MADC/LR&S/ TECH/2018 dated 23.09.2019.” 12. With utmost humility at our command, we say that the learned Single Judge was not justified in ruling that once administrative cost @ 2.5% of the total value of land had already been deducted, the cess recoverable on the value of land could not have been levied as such levy could only be for the purposes of covering administrative expenses. 13. This interpretation is only on a partial reading of the provision contained in Section 23(2)(b) of the Act of 2018. 14. So far as the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that no cess is recoverable from the amount of compensation awarded, is concerned, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as compensation is paid on the basis of the market value of the land, which otherwise could not have been recoverable, unless compensation were paid to the land holders/ respondents. 15. 15. There is no constitutional challenge to Rules 22 & 23 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Land and Revenue) Act, 2018 either. 16. For the afore-noted reason, we do not find the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was justified. 17. We, therefore, set aside the same and direct that the appellant/MADC shall be under no obligation to refund the amount of 10% levied on the landholders as cess under Section 23(2)(b) of the Act of 2018. In case the money has been refunded pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, those shall be recoverable from the respondents after following the due process of law. 18. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.