THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. The State of Mizoram r/b The Chief Secretary to the Govt
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NELSON SAILO
Outcome
Disposed of
deducted is not a huge amount, the matter is disposed of at the motion stage as a
Provisions considered
Judgment
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
8.06.2022 ORDER Page No.# 2/3 Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents concerned to release the amount that was deducted towards cess from the compensation amount to be received by them for acquisition of their respective lands under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act of 1956). The learned counsel submits that the Central Government issued a notification on 11.08.2020 for acquiring the land at Dulte Village in the District of Khawzawl, Mizoram under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. After following all the formalities, an Award was prepared under Section 3G and 3H of the same Act on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioners were paid their respective shares of the compensation in the month of January, 2021 however, after deducting 15% of the land value towards cess in terms of the Rule 47(4) of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Rules, 2013.
The learned counsel submits that a perusal of the aforesaid provision nowhere indicates that cess can be deducted from the compensation to be received by the land owner for acquisition made under a Central Law i.e. Act of 1956. The deduction made by the respondents is therefore illegal and the respondents concerned should be directed to release the same to the petitioners within a time frame. She further submits that in fact, this Court in a similar case i.e. WP(C) No. 105/2021 vide Order dated 11.11.2021 held that cess cannot be deducted from the compensation amount awarded through an acquisition done under a Central Act and Page No.# 3/3 therefore, the instant case is also a covered matter. At this stage, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appears for the State respondents and submits that she does not dispute that the instant case is a covered case but in view of the financial crunch faced by the State in recent times, at least 6 months time may be granted to the State respondents to disburse the amount that was deducted.
Operative part
Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appears for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and they do not dispute that the matter is a covered case. In view of above and also upon considering the fact that the amount that was deducted is not a huge amount, the matter is disposed of at the motion stage as a covered case with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to refund the amount deducted as cess to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and failing which, the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a on the amount due from 08.06.2022 till the entire amount is fully paid. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: deducted is not a huge amount, the matter is disposed of at the motion stage as a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956.
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.