Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 368 (GAU)

Sh. K. Zadingliana v. Union of India

2025-03-04

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned Central Government Advocate (CGC) for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Vaneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to pay rental compensation to the petitioners for occupation of their lands by the security forces since 1987, till the period of acquisition of their lands as per law. 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioners are holders of settlement certificate of lands, located at Thuampui Helipad Area, Aizawl, Mizoram and since 1987, their lands are being occupied by the security forces. Though the land acquisition proceeding was initiated on 11.06.2018 and thereafter, preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was issued by the respondent No. 7, no rent was paid by the respondent authorities to them for occupation of their land by the security forces. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition for granting the relief aforesaid.” 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the statements and averments made in the present petition. It is stated that LSC was issued to the petitioners during 1996 and 1997 and the same may be fraudulent as the land in question was under the occupation of Government of India, Ministry of Defence during 1996. It is also stated that as per Government of Mizoram ‘Collection of Acts, Regulation of Rules’ operated by the Revenue Department in connection with Revenue Administration, compiled by Directorate of Land Revenue and Settlement in Chapter 11 (Section 4-7) in Para No. 3 to Para No. 9, it is the Chief Controlling Authority who has to survey the land applied for temporary or permanent allotment, through village council president concerned with his recommendation. It is also stated that in Para No. 9 of the aforesaid Collection of Acts, Regulation of Rules, it is mentioned that the Field Staff has also to submit their reports as to whether the land is available for settlement under patta and free from encumbrances and therefore, allotment of LSC to the petitioners during 1996, has violated the aforesaid Collection of Acts, Regulation of Rules, as the land concerned is under the occupation of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, since 01.09.1986. 4.1. It is further stated that the petitioners’ name had never been reflected in the payee’s receipt for the periods of 01.09.1986 to 31.12.1997, 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2005 and 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2007, furnished by the State authorities of Mizoram and their names have also not been reflected in the Award No. 1 of 2019, dated 18.07.2019. But, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl has reflected the names of the petitioners only in the Supplementary Award dated 27.01.2020. 4.2. It is also stated that the land concerned is under occupation of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence since 01.09.1986 and the rental compensation amounting to Rs. 5,19,93,771/-, Rs. 8,86,64,648/- and Rs. 1,98,30,370/- made by the Ministry of Defence for the period w.e.f. 01.09.1986 to 31.12.1997, 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2005 and 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2007, respectively as per the ownership wise assessment submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, and that the payments of rental compensation had been made by the Ministry of Defence from time to time through State Government of Mizoram for the total area occupied in different locations of Mizoram for onward disbursement to the rightful land owners, and the State Government of Mizoram has to produce their clarification in the matter of non-payment of rental compensation to the petitioners. Under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 5. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the statements and averments made in this petition. It is stated that the subject case, pertaining to Thuampui Helipad Area, Mizoram is the responsibility of Station Headquarters C/o 457 Ambulance, Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle and held under Ministry of Defence, and that the Ministry of Home Affairs has never occupied or leased the above land and therefore, Ministry of Home Affairs is not liable for any of the demand so made by the petitioners in the aforesaid location. 6. The respondent Nos. 6. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the statements and averments made in the present petition. It is stated that as per the judgment and order passed by this Court in Contempt Petition 14/2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl had prepared Award No. 1 of 2019 and pronounced the Award dated 11.10.2019, and the present petitioners were all included in the said compensation award. It is also stated that the details of landholdings of the petitioners clearly indicated the claimed period of each petitioners i.e. from the date of possession of a valid land holding certificate till the date of acquisition. However, there is no relevant document to prove and show the ownership of the lands prior to each petitioners’ possession of valid land passes and hence, the claim for rental compensation from 1987, has no legal standing ground, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is squarely covered by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in WP(C) No. 170/2019, dated 15.02.2023, and the relief granted to the petitioners of the said writ petition may be granted to the present petitioners also. Mr. Lalfakawma also submits that the aforementioned judgment and order dated 15.02.2023, was challenged in a writ appeal, being WA No. 4/2024, and vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2025, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench and as such, the present petitioners may be granted similar relief as granted to the petitioners of the said writ petition. 8. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Vaneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also submit that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in WP(C) No. 170/2019, dated 15.02.2023. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the judgment and order dated 15.02.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 170/2019. 10. It is to be noted here that in the aforementioned judgment and order, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No. 2, has granted the following relief to the petitioners therein: “ 12. 10. It is to be noted here that in the aforementioned judgment and order, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No. 2, has granted the following relief to the petitioners therein: “ 12. In the premises, the respondents are directed to pay rental compensation to the petitioners for occupation of their lands by the Security Forces since the respective years of issue of the LSCs, shown above, till formal acquisition of their lands, after due assessment by the respondents, more particularly, by the respondent No. 7, District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Mizoram giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners within a period of 6(six) months from the date of this order. It is made clear that in the event of failure to pay the rental compensation to the petitioners within the aforesaid period of 6(six) months, interest @3 percent per annum, shall be payable thereafter on the compensation amounts till the date of payment.” 11. A careful perusal of the pleading of the parties as well as the judgment and order in WP(C) No. 170/2019, it appears that subject matter of the present petition and subject matter of the said WP(C) No. 170/2019, are same. It also appears that the judgment and order in WP(C) No. 170/2019, was challenged in WA No. 04/2024 and the said judgment and order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. And that being so, similar relief granted in WP(C) No. 170/2019, can be granted to the petitioners herein also. 12. Thus, in view of the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by granting similar relief as granted to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 170/2019. 13. Accordingly, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall make a verification regarding the issuance of the LSC to the petitioners and in the event of those found to be genuine, then the respondent authorities shall pass a reasoned order regarding their entitlement of rental compensation, for occupation of their land by the security forces, since the date of issuance of the LSC, till formal acquisition of their lands, after detailed assessment, specially by the respondent No. 7/Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl District. Before passing a reasoned order, the respondent authorities shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 14. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today. 15. In the event of failing to pay rental compensation to the petitioners within the period of four months from the date receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order, the rental amount which the petitioners are entitled to, shall carry interest @ Bank Rate, per annum, till the date of payment. 16. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.