THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. Union of India r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The petitioners’ counsel submits that at the time of issuance of the Preliminary Notification No. K12011/34/2012 RFA dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, the acquisition of the land of the petitioners was to…
- Para 66. Accordingly, the respondents shall assess the compensation amount payable to the petitioners, for acquisition of their lands, in terms of the 2013 Act. After making necessary deductions of the amounts already paid to the petitioners, the remaining balance, if any, should be paid to…
Judgment
ORDER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
22.04.2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the land of the petitioners were acquired by the respondents vide Draft Award No. 1/2022, in terms of the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2016 Act’). However, in view of the decision of this Court in the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 in WP(C) No. 20/2014 and WP(C) No. 30/2014, which has been up-held by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 70 and 71/2018, the land of the petitioners would now have to be acquired and compensated in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’).
The petitioners’ counsel submits that at the time of issuance of the Preliminary Notification No. K12011/34/2012 RFA dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, the acquisition of the land of the petitioners was to depend upon the outcome of W.A. No. 70/2018. As this Court in WP(C) No. 20/2014 and WP(C) No. 30/2014 had held that the 2016 Act was not applicable to the State of Mizoram and that compensation would have to be given for acquisition of land as per the 2013 Act and as the same has been up-held by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 70 and 71/2018, the petitioners compensation would have to be enhanced or modified in terms of the 2013 Act. Page No.# 3/4
Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 fairly submit that as this is a covered matter, in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 29.07.2022 and the Judgment & Orders passed in WP(C) No. 20/2014, WP(C) No. 30/2014, W.A. Nos. 70 and 71/2018, the petitioners would have to be paid compensation, in terms of the 2013 Act.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
In view of this Court having held in the above writ petitions and writ appeals that compensation for acquisition of land in the State of Mizoram would have to be done in terms of the 2013 Act and not in terms of the 2016 Act, the respondents are duly bound to assess and pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the 2013 Act.
Accordingly, the respondents shall assess the compensation amount payable to the petitioners, for acquisition of their lands, in terms of the 2013 Act. After making necessary deductions of the amounts already paid to the petitioners, the remaining balance, if any, should be paid to the petitioners. The same should be done within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.