The Union of India r/b the Secretary and Anr. v. The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

22.01.2025 (Nelson Sailo, J) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Ministry of Home Affairs. [2.] By filing this writ appeal, the appellants have challenged the Judgment & Order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 170/2019 (Remsiama Ngente & 2 Ors. Vs. Union of India & 6 Ors.) wherein, the instant writ appellants have been held liable to pay rental compensation to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6/writ petitioners (hereafter referred to as writ petitioners) as calculated by the District Collector concerned. [3.] It is the case of the writ petitioners that they are the owners of land located at Thuampui Helipad area Aizawl covered by their respective Land Settlement Certificates (LSCs). Their lands have been occupied by the security forces since the years 1996, 2003 and 1994 respectively but the acquisition proceeding of their land was initiated only on 11.06.2018 under the relevant provisions of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Page No.# 3/9 Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). According to the petitioners, although they have been awarded compensation for acquisition of their land but no rental compensation has been paid to them for the unauthorized occupation of the security forces prior to the acquisition of their land. [4.] The writ petition was decided on contest by the parties and the learned Single Judge by taking it into account the Apex Court decision in R.L. Jain (D) by LRS Vs. DDA & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 allowed the writ petition by directing the assessment for rental compensation and the respondent authorities concerned to pay the petitioners the assessed compensation for occupation of their land. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants are before this Court through the instant appeal. [5.] The appellants have taken three (3) grounds for filing the instant appeal and they have been abstracted as below:- “A. For that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the names of the petitioners were not included in the rental assessment. As such, the judgment and order dated 15.2.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside. B. For that it is not a dispute that prior to the acquisition of lands in question, the same was under occupation of the Security Forces from 1966 till the time of acquisition. LSC was issued to the respondent No.4 in 1996, to the respondent No.5 in 2003 and to the respondent No.6 in

1994. If the land was in occupation of the Armed Forces, Land Page No.# 4/9 Settlement Certificates against the said lands could not have been issued without the knowledge and consent of Union of India. The learned Single Judge, while passing the said judgment dated 15.2.2023 made an error whereby directed to pay rental compensation to the writ petitioners since 1994. As such, the judgment and order dated15.2.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside. C. For that, in no point of time, the lands-in- question were under the occupation of the writ petitioners. The names of the petitioners did not figure in the list of claimants on the first three occasions. It was only after the Award No.1 of 2019 dated 18.7.2019 that the petitioners came into the picture. As such, the judgment and order dated 15.2.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside.” [6.] Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned CGC submits that prior to the acquisition of the land of the petitioners as per Award No. 1/2019, the petitioners never raised any claim for rental compensation. In fact, rental compensation has been paid to other land owners in three (3) stages but the names of none of the writ petitioners figured amongst those who were paid rental compensation. It is therefore not open for them to make such a claim at this belated stage. He submits that the claim for rental compensation is therefore hit by delay and laches and in fact, the same cannot be claimed after a period of three (3) years from the date the arrear rent becomes due as stipulated under Article 52 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,

1963. In support of his submission, the learned CGC relies upon the case of Page No.# 5/9 Harendra Chandra Nath Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. 2013 (2) GLT 1094. [7.] The learned CGC further submits that while the claim for rental compensation is from the year 1996 for petitioner No. 1, 2003 for petitioner No. 2 and 1994 for petitioner No. 3, the fact remains that land was occupied by the security forces way back in the year 1966 and therefore the petitioners could not have claimed forceful occupation of their land only from 1996, 2003 or 1994 onwards. He submits that the petitioners could not have been issued their LSCs while the security forces were in occupation since 1966. He thus submits that under the facts and circumstance, the impugned Judgment & Order of the learned Single Judge should be set aside. [8.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned CGC has made his submissions beyond his pleadings. He submits that in fact, the appellants have not questioned or raised any objection with regard to the validity of the LSCs of the petitioners at any stage except in the instant writ appeal. That on the strength of their LSCs, the petitioners have been awarded their respective share of compensation and the same has also been duly satisfied by the appellants. It is therefore no open for them to question the validity of their LSCs at this stage. He submits that the fact of the security forces having occupied the land of the petitioners unauthorizedly came to light when verification was conducted in the year 2017 & 2018. It was therefore on that basis that their lands came to be Page No.# 6/9 acquired but no rental compensation was paid to them for the unauthorized occupation of their land prior to the acquisition of their land. Therefore, the petitioners have every right to rental compensation for the occupation of their land from the date of issuance of LSC to them. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the Order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on

23.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 8/2023 (Union of India & 2 Ors. Vs. R. Sapchama & 37 Ors). Referring to the said decision, the learned counsel submits that the Division Bench held that when the land of the writ petitioners in that case have been acquired for and on behalf of the security forces, they would certainly be entitled to be paid rental compensation from the date of issuance of their respective Land Settlement Certificates till the actual acquisition of their land. He submits that facts in the instance case are similar and identical and therefore, the direction of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the instant case. He therefore submits that a similar direction may be passed in the present case as well. [9.] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate submits that at the time of spot verification, it was found that that land of the petitioners apart from others were indeed within the occupied area of the security forces and therefore, the petitioners figured amongst the land owners whose lands were acquired vide Award No. 1/2019. She submits that similarly situated persons having been Page No.# 7/9 awarded rental compensation and the petitioners having not received any such compensation, they too are entitled to be given rental compensation. [10.] Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the Ministry of Home Affairs submits that the Ministry of Home Affairs is only a proforma respondent and therefore she has nothing to submit in the matter. [11.] We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have perused the materials available on record. [12.] It is the claim of the petitioners that they should be given rental compensation for occupation of their land since the issuance of their LSCs in the year 1996, 2003 and 1994 respectively as was done in the case of similarly situated persons. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that as the lands have been acquired vide Award No. 1/2019 without any rental compensation, the same should be assessed and paid to them. The writ appellants have not disputed the fact that the petitioners have not received rental compensation which can be seen from the stand taken by them that the petitioners did not figure in the list of claims to be paid compensation prepared on three (3) occasions preceding Award No. 1/2019. Therefore, the questions is as to whether the petitioners can be denied their share of rental compensation solely on the ground that their names did not figure amongst those who have been paid rental compensation prior to acquisition of the lands. Page No.# 8/9 [13.] Article 52 of the Limitation Act referred to by the learned CGC barring the claim for arrears of land after lapse of three (3) years from the date rent becomes due is with regard to Suits relating to contracts. In the present case, we are not concerned with any contract agreement for payment of rent being executed by the parties concerned or any other parties having filed a Suit before the Civil Court. The petitioners have claimed for rental compensation for unauthorized occupation of their land and they have relied upon the fact that rental compensation has been given against claims of similar nature. The writ appellants as admitted by them have been paying rental compensation on many occasions and certainly on three (3) occasions. We are therefore of the considered view that no line of distinction can be drawn in respect of the present petitioners for depriving them of the benefit of being paid rental compensation with effect from the date of issuance of their respective LSCs. [14.] As already pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 8/2023 in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that once compensation has been paid to land owners in lieu of the acquisition of their lands on the basis of Land Settlement Certificates, they certainly would be entitled to rental compensation from the date of issuance of their LSCs till acquisition takes place. The said decision in our considered view is applicable to the present case as well. We therefore do not find any infirmity with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 15.02.2023. [15.] The writ appeal accordingly is found to be without merit and the same is Page No.# 9/9 dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant