Judgment and Order : Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2 . By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following directions to the respondents: a. To acquire the plot/land of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965;and b. To pay the petitioner rent for his plot/land from 1979 to date, with interest. 3 . The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that, sometime in 1979-80, due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration, the petitioner constructed 28 barracks for police personnel on his plot at Old Town, Zunheboto. Subsequently, a portion of the land was converted into a park. 4 . However, the park was later relocated. The petitioner was informed that the land would be used by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) for setting up their office, which was said to be in the public interest. The petitioner was assured that arrangements would be made to his satisfaction. 5 . Thereafter, the petitioner met with respondent No. 4 on several occasions to request appropriate action. He was advised to wait and was assured that his grievances would be addressed. However, no action was taken as promised. Instead, BSNL began developmental work on the plot. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the District Administration. Upon receiving this complaint, the District Administration issued Order No. dev-54/2000 dated 29.11.2000, restraining BSNL from continuing construction work. 6 . As no response was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.06.2019 to BSNL, requesting compensation for the land of the Microwave Office, Zunheboto, Nagaland. In response, BSNL (respondent No. 5) informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 58,894 had been paid to the Deputy Commissioner and that the land in question had been allotted to BSNL. The letter enclosed a land allotment order bearing No. LR/TC-2/79 dated 10.08.1981. According to the petitioner, this letter contradicts BSNL's claim, stating that the sum of Rs. 58,894 is for the cost of the buildings on the land and not for the land itself. The petitioner also did not receive any payment from the District Administration. The letter enclosed a land allotment order bearing No. LR/TC-2/79 dated 10.08.1981. According to the petitioner, this letter contradicts BSNL's claim, stating that the sum of Rs. 58,894 is for the cost of the buildings on the land and not for the land itself. The petitioner also did not receive any payment from the District Administration. 7 . Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.06.2019 to the State respondents, pointing out that he had not been paid any rent for the use of his plot since 1979-80. He also noted that the prescribed process for taking over the land for public purposes had not been initiated and requested due process for acquiring his land and for compensation, along with a reasonable mesne profit from 1979-80 to date. 8 . These representations led to letters addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, by the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, requesting clarification regarding the petitioner’s plot and a detailed explanation of the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Sardar, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, also wrote a letter dated 08.08.2019 to the SDE (BSNL), Zunheboto, requesting for any available documents regarding the land occupied by BSNL. 9 . In response to the letter dated 08.08.2019, BSNL, by letter No. BP-2002/Land & Building/PLG/PT-II/2019/58 dated 30.08.2019, provided documents in their possession. This letter included an agreement indicating that the petitioner’s plot, measuring 200 x 200 feet, was allotted on lease, with rent set at Rs. 60 per acre per year. 10 . Following this, the petitioner’s plot was surveyed, and by letter No. LRSO/Z/TECH-8/2004 dated 27.09.2019, the survey report was submitted. The report indicated that the petitioner’s plot, measuring 2409 sqm (25,932 sq. ft.), is under the occupation of BSNL. 11 . Subsequently, the District Land Settlement Board held a meeting on 21.11.2019 at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto. One of the subjects discussed in the meeting was the occupation of the petitioner’s plot by BSNL. The Board recommended the outright purchase of the plot. A representative of BSNL was present at the meeting and undertook to inform BSNL of the decision made. The minutes of the meeting were forwarded to the Commissioner by letter No. DC/LR/LAND/DSLB-100/2019/725 dated 26.11.2019. 12 . The petitioner contended that the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 governs the acquisition/requisition of land by the State. A representative of BSNL was present at the meeting and undertook to inform BSNL of the decision made. The minutes of the meeting were forwarded to the Commissioner by letter No. DC/LR/LAND/DSLB-100/2019/725 dated 26.11.2019. 12 . The petitioner contended that the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 governs the acquisition/requisition of land by the State. Regarding the petitioner’s plot, no recourse to the provisions of the Act has been taken by the State. Therefore, both the State and BSNL are in illegal occupation of the petitioner’s plot. 13 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any payment for his plot. Although BSNL claims that Rs. 58,894 was paid to the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, the petitioner has not received any amount. Therefore, since 1979, the petitioner is entitled to receive arrears of rent at market rates. Furthermore, if the State and BSNL wish to acquire the petitioner’s land, it must be done in accordance with the law. The learned counsel also asserts that both the State and BSNL are liable to pay the petitioner rent from 1979 to date and that the petitioner is entitled to just compensation under the provisions of the Act. 14 . It is further argued that the land belongs to the petitioner, and the State has not acquired it. Therefore, the State has no right to give allotment to the respondent no. 5 or collect rent. The burden is on the State to prove proper acquisition under the law. In support of his submission, he cited the case of D.B. Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572 . 15. He further contends that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Any acquisition that deviates from the Land Acquisition Act is illegal and void ab initio. The State’s power to acquire land in such manner cannot be justified. In this regard, he references the case of Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 601 , wherein it is held that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In this regard, he references the case of Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 601 , wherein it is held that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Acquisition proceedings in derogation of the land Acquisition Act are perverse and illegal and void ab initio. Such exercise of power by the State Government for the acquisition of land cannot be allowed under any circumstances. 16. Additionally, the learned counsel emphasizes that, in a rule-of- law democracy, the State cannot strip citizens of their property without legal sanction. As a welfare State, it cannotinvoke adverse possession to claim citizen’s land. He supports this argument with the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 , which held that in a democratic polity, governed by the rule of law, the State cannot deprive citizens of their property without sanction of law. The State, being a welfare state, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession. The State cannot be allowed to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizen. 17. The learned State counsel, referring to the paragraphs 4,5,7,8 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents has fairly acknowledged that the petitioner’s claims are supported by records. However, the learned State counsel stated that a portion of the land was converted into a children’s park with some infrastructure under the supervision of the Zunheboto Town Council. 18 . The learned State counsel, while referring to paragraph 5 of the affidavit, admitted that the land was leased at the rate of Rs. 60 per acre per year to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Microwave Project (respondent No. 5), and that an agreement for the allotment of land was executed between the parties. The learned State counsel also clarified that the amount of Rs. 58,894 was solely for the cost of the park infrastructure and not for the land itself; therefore, the question of payment of this amount to the petitioner does not arise. The learned State counsel also clarified that the amount of Rs. 58,894 was solely for the cost of the park infrastructure and not for the land itself; therefore, the question of payment of this amount to the petitioner does not arise. Furthermore, the learned State counsel stated that respondent No. 4 has already pursued the matter of acquiring the land through the District Land Settlement Board (DLSB) on 21.11.2019, and that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration by the State government. 19 . The learned State counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 further stated that on 21.11.2019, the DLSB held a meeting at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 4), during which the land was recommended for outright purchase by the Committee members through the DLSB, Zunheboto. However, it has yet to receive approval from the State Land Acquisition Authority (SLAA). 20 . The learned State counsel admitted that, due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration, the petitioner constructed 28 barracks for police personnel on his plot. However, he argued that the petitioner lacks the standing to file the instant petition and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 21 . The learned counsel for respondent No. 5, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 5, submitted that the Government of Nagaland, through the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, exercised its vested rights in the land and transferred the erstwhile Government Park to BSNL for value received. In other words, BSNL acquired and has possessed the immovable property measuring 200 ft x 200 ft (40,000 sq. ft.) since 1982, upon payment of Rs. 58,894, subject to the condition that BSNL would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per acre (1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.) per year to the State government, as per the agreement dated 22.12.1982 between the Government of Nagaland and respondent No. 5. Thus, BSNL has been in possession of the land since 1982 for public service, however, no rent has been paid to the Government since then for about 38 years. Consequently, BSNL has acquired ownership rights to the property through adverse possession, and neither the Government nor the petitioner has any legal right to demand compensation, consideration, premium, or rent for the land occupied by BSNL. 22 . Consequently, BSNL has acquired ownership rights to the property through adverse possession, and neither the Government nor the petitioner has any legal right to demand compensation, consideration, premium, or rent for the land occupied by BSNL. 22 . The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 further argued that the government acquired and possessed the property for value paid, thus vesting rights in the Government since 1979, until it was allotted to BSNL. Therefore, the petitioner has no rights to the land occupied by the Police or BSNL. 23. He also noted that the petitioner did not assert that the barracks were constructed and allowed the government to possess them for police accommodation without compensation. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 maintained that the Government rightly allotted the land to BSNL, as all rights to the land were vested in the Government of Nagaland since 1979 when the petitioner handed over the barracks for police accommodation. He added that the payment of Rs. 58,894 in 1982 was a condition for the allotment of the land, and thus, BSNL paid this amount to the Deputy Commissioner of Zunheboto for the cost of the structures and in consideration of the yearly rent of Rs. 60 per acre. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner allotted the land to BSNL to provide services to the public. If the petitioner is the owner and has not received the Rs. 58,894, he may approach the Government, particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, for payment of that amount. The petitioner has no right to demand or proceed against BSNL for any amount, as BSNL has already acquired ownership rights to the land through uninterrupted possession for 38 years without paying rent. 24 . The learned counsel clarified that since BSNL has already paid Rs. 58,894 to the government for the land, any failure to pay the petitioner is a matter between the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, specifically the Government of Nagaland, and not against BSNL. The petitioner has no legal right to claim rent, premium, or compensation from BSNL. In this context, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the petitioner is a stranger to the land allotment order No. LR/TC-2/79 dated 10.8.1981, as well as the deed of agreement for the allotment of land dated 22.12.1982, and the letter dated 30.08.2019. The petitioner has no legal right to claim rent, premium, or compensation from BSNL. In this context, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the petitioner is a stranger to the land allotment order No. LR/TC-2/79 dated 10.8.1981, as well as the deed of agreement for the allotment of land dated 22.12.1982, and the letter dated 30.08.2019. Therefore, the petitioner has improperly proceeded against BSNL for compensation for the land allotted to BSNL, as BSNL's possession of the land is protected by the allotment order and deed of agreement in perpetuity. Since the possession of the land is governed by the agreement, this is a contractual matter, and any proceedings against BSNL should be within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court, subject to the statutes governing limitation and adverse possession. 25 . For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief or compensation from respondent No. 5, as the petitioner has waived any rights by not claiming in a timely manner. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 26 . I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused and considered the documents available on record. 27 . From the record, it appears that sometime in 1979-80, due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration, the petitioner constructed 28 barracks for police personnel on his plot at Old Town, Zunheboto. Subsequently, a portion of the land was converted into a park, which was later relocated. The petitioner was informed that the land would be used by BSNL for setting up their office, which was said to be in the public interest. The petitioner was assured that arrangements would be made to his satisfaction. 28 . The petitioner approached respondent No. 4 on several occasions, requesting either to acquisition the land under the Land Requisition and Acquisition Act or to pay adequate compensation. However, BSNL began developmental work on the plot without addressing the petitioner’s grievances, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint with the District Administration, which subsequently restrained BSNL from construction work. 29 . It also appears that the petitioner was later informed that Rs. However, BSNL began developmental work on the plot without addressing the petitioner’s grievances, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint with the District Administration, which subsequently restrained BSNL from construction work. 29 . It also appears that the petitioner was later informed that Rs. 58,894 had been paid to the Deputy Commissioner and that the land in question had been allotted to BSNL on 22.12.1982, subject to the condition that BSNL would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per acre per year to the Government, as per the agreement dated 22.12.1982 between the Government of Nagaland and respondent No. 5.Admittedly, BSNL has been in possession of the land since 1982. 30 . However, upon perusal of the agreement dated 22.12.1982 between the Government of Nagaland and respondent No. 5, it appears that the payment of Rs. 58,894 was made for the cost of the buildings on the land. The petitioner claims he has not received any payment from the District Administration for the land. It seems that BSNL was allowed to possess the property upon payment of Rs. 58,894, with the condition that BSNL would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per acre per year to the State government, as per the agreement dated 22.12.1982. Since 1982, BSNL has been in possession of the land, but it has not paid any lease rent to the State Government as stipulated in the agreement. The claim of respondent No. 5/BSNL is that they have been in continuous possession of the land for over 38 years without paying rent, and during this time, the petitioner has not claimed any amount from the Government. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief or compensation under the law of acquisition or any other law after more than 38 years. Respondent No. 5/BSNL asserts that they have acquired rights through adverse possession. 31 . The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the land in question is owned by the petitioner and has not been acquired by the state; thus, the State lacks the authority to allot it to respondent No. 5 or collect rent. Furthermore, he argues that it is the State's burden to prove that the land has been acquired according to established procedures. To support this argument, the learned counsel referenced the case of D.B. Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Furthermore, he argues that it is the State's burden to prove that the land has been acquired according to established procedures. To support this argument, the learned counsel referenced the case of D.B. Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr, (Supra) .The relevant paragraphs are as follows: “ 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. 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. 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 No.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 300A 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, 18942 (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 3. 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.” 32. From the pleadings and discussions above, it is clear that the State has acknowledged that the petitioner constructed 28 barracks for police personal on his land. This was done due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration (Respondent No.4) has pursued the acquisition of this land through the District Land Settlement Board (DLSB).The petitioner’s representation is currently under consideration by the State government, as stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the state respondent. This was done due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration (Respondent No.4) has pursued the acquisition of this land through the District Land Settlement Board (DLSB).The petitioner’s representation is currently under consideration by the State government, as stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the state respondent. Furthermore, during the DLSB meeting held on 21.11.2019, at the Deputy Commissioner’s office, the Committee members recommended the outright purchase of the land through the DLSB, Zunheboto. This recommendation is now pending approval from the State Land Acquisition Authority (SLAA), as stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the state respondent. The petitioner’s claims that the land belongs to him and that it has not been acquired by the Government nor any compensation paid is acknowledged by the State respondent. His assertion that the Government should acquire the land in accordance with the law is support by the decision in D.B. Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr. (Supra) which hold that it is the burden of the State to prove that the land has been acquired in accordance with the procedures established by law. In this case, it is clear that the land was not acquired by the State in accordance with the law. 33 . Considering the facts and circumstances presented in this case, and in view of the discussion made above, this Court deems it necessary to dispose of this writ petition. Therefore, the respondents, particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, are directed to take appropriate steps to complete the process regarding the acquisition of the petitioner’s plot/land in accordance with the provisions of the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. Additionally, the respondents are directed to examine the petitioner’s claim for payment of rent for the plot/land and to fulfil any legal obligation pertaining to this claim in accordance with the law. This process should be completed within 6 (six) months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 34 . With these observations and directives, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.