State of Mizoram and 3 Ors v. R.Lalhmingsanga and 11 Ors.

Court: Gauhati High Court

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

Judgment date: 2024-11-28

Case summary

Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-11-28. State of Mizoram and 3 Ors v. R.Lalhmingsanga and 11 Ors. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

Page No. # 1/107 GAHC030003822021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/5/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Darkunga and 162 Ors Zohmun, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : WA/12/2022 State of Mizoram and 2 Ors R/b Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Aizawl 3: Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl District Aizawl VERSUS C. Rochungnunga and 2 Ors. S/o Zachhinga Page No. # 2/107 Zohmun Mizoram 2:C. Laltlanthanga Zohmun Mizoram 3:Zachhinga (L) r/b his legal representative C. Rochungnunga Zohmun Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Vanlalnghaka Linked Case : WA/10/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors R/b Chief Secretary Govt.

of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Vanlalliana and 70 Ors Saipum Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : I. A. (Civil)/119/2022 State of Mizoram and 4 Ors r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2: Secretary to the Govt . of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Page No. # 3/107 Aizawl 3: Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Aizawl District Aizawl 4: Deputy Commissioner Aizawl District Aizawl 5: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Forest and Environment Dept. Aizawl VERSUS R. Lalhmingsanga and 11 Ors S/o R. Lalkhawhluna N. Serzawl Mizoram 2:R. Lalkhawhluna N. Serzawl Mizoram 3:R. Thanchhunga (L) r/b his son and legal representative Sh Vanlalhlua N. Serzawl Mizoram 4:Sarah Lalremruati D/o V. L. Para Chaltlang Aizawl 5:V. L. Para S/o Buaia Chaltlang Aizawl 6:L. H. Zuala S/o Auva Zemabawk Kawn Veng-II Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Page No.

# 4/107 Linked Case : WA/7/2021 State of Mizoram and 2 Ors R/b Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Malsawma and 229 Ors Mauchar Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : I. A. (Civil)/120/2022 State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. R/b Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Aizawl 3: Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl District Mizoram VERSUS C. Rochungnunga and 2 Ors. S/o Zachhinga Zohmun Mizoram 2:C. Laltlanthanga S/o Rochungnunga Zohmun Mizoram Page No. # 5/107 3:Zachhinga (L) r/b his legal representative C. Rochungnunga Zohmun Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : WA/11/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors R/b Chief Secretary Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Mitinpawla and 16 Ors N. Serzawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl.

AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : WA/6/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Lalthamanga and 53 Ors Sakawrdai Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Page No. # 6/107 Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : WA/8/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors R/b Chief secretary Government of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Ngurthanmawia and 34 Ors Khatla Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr A. R. Malhotra Linked Case : I. A. (Civil)/176/2024 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh Lalthamanga and 53 Ors. S/o Zaipuia R/o Sakawrdai Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr A. R. Malhotra Page No. # 7/107 Linked Case : WA/13/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram VERSUS Sh.

Lalremkunga and 21 Ors Saipum Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr A. R. Malhotra Linked Case : WA/12/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors Chief Secretary to the Goverment of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. C. Zarmawia and 45 Ors N. Hlimen AizaWL Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma Linked Case : WA/11/2022 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors Page No. # 8/107 R/b Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2: Chief Secretary Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 3: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Aizawl 4: Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector Aizawl District Aizawl 5: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Forest and Environment Dept. Aizawl VERSUS R. Lalhmingsanga and 11 Ors. N. Serzawl Mizoram 2:R. Lalkhawhluna N. Serzawl Mizoram 3:R. Thanchhunga (L) R/b his son and legal representative Sh Vanlalhlua N. Serzawl Mizoram 4:Sarah Lalremruati D/o V. L.

Para Chaltlang Aizawl 5:V. L. Para S/o Buaia Chaltlang Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R1 - R11 Page No. # 9/107 Linked Case : WA/9/2021 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors R/b Chief Secretary To the Government of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Manglianthanga and 33 Ors N. Hlimen Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma - BEFORE - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Date of Hearing : 28. 10. 2024. Date of Judgment : 29. 11. 2024. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (D. Baruah, J. ) Heard Mr. B. Deb, the learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Lalnunhlui, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Mizoram. We have also heard Mr. C. Page No. # 10/107 Lalramzauva, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos.

8, 11 and 13 of 2021 as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of 2021 as well as Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga for the Respondents Writ Appeal Nos. 11/2022 and 12/2022. We have also heard Mr. V. K. Jindal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Subedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NEEPCO. 2. This instant batch of Writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27. 01. 2021 passed in 11 (eleven) writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge had - (a) Set aside the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016 passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram; (b) Set aside the notification dated 28. 01.

1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955; (c) The Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions were given the liberty to seek alternative remedy for execution of the Awards in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’); and Page No. # 11/107 (d) The State of Mizoram was given the liberty to pay compensation amounts to the writ petitioners. 3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to mention that by this impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge decided three different grievances raised in the writ petitions. Out of the eleven writ petitions, nine of them were grievances of non-payment of the entitlement as per Awards passed by the Collector in terms with the Act of 1894. Two writ petitions which were filed subsequently in the year 2017, raised two grievances. The first grievance was non-satisfaction of the Awards and thereby seeking directions.

Secondly, the Petitioners in these two writ petitions were aggrieved by order dated 05. 08. 2016 and the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 and accordingly challenged the order dated 05. 08. 2016 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram as well as the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) whereby half mile on either side of 16 rivers were made Council Reserve Forests. 4. To decide the legality of the impugned judgment and order, we find it appropriate first to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the various writ petitions and the passing of the impugned judgment and order. Page No. # 12/107 5. The Government of Mizoram had taken a policy decision to set up 60 MW Hydro Electric Project over the River Tuirial in the year 1996.

The project was to be set up with the help of the North East Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO), a Government of India Undertaking having its registered Office at Shillong. In that regard, an agreement was entered into by and between the Government of Mizoram and NEEPCO for execution of the Tuirial (60 MW) Hydro Electric Project on 29. 05. 1996. The said Agreement contained various clauses. Amongst the said clauses, Clause-8 of the said agreement stipulated that the total land required for the construction and completion of the project shall be acquired by the State Government and handed over to NEEPCO on payment of the necessary fee to the State Government as assessed by the State Government. 6. It is pertinent herein to mention that a communication was issued on 10. 08. 1990 much prior to entering into the Agreement dated 29. 05. 1996.

In the said letter, the Conservator of the Forests, Government of Mizoram reported that the land which would be required for the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project and more particularly, the whole submergent area would fall inside the Riverine Reserved Forest of Tuirial. It was also mentioned that since the area was a Riverine Reserve Forest Area, issuance of LSC or periodic patta for WRC and garden were completely illegal. It is also seen from the Page No. # 13/107 records and more particularly the communication dated 15. 10. 1993 that a request was made for approval of diversion of 53. 80 Hectares of forest land for clearance of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. Additionally, it is also seen from a communication issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India to the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram dated 19. 09. 2003 wherein there was a mention that budgetary provision of only Rs. 431.

97 lakhs was made for preliminary and land acquisition and there was no provision made towards crop compensation. The said budgetary provision was on the basis that the submergent area was part of the Reserved Forest Area. 7. In spite of the above, the Agreement executed on 29. 05. 1996 contained Clause-8 wherein the question of land acquisition and payment thereof was mentioned. It is further apparent from the records that the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue and Settlement Department had issued a notification bearing No. K. 12011/1/96-REV dated 03. 03. 1997 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 whereby it was notified that the land specified in the Schedule thereto was likely to be needed for public purposes viz. acquisition of land for Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. The Schedule as mentioned in the said notification pertained to the area wherein the boundary extended from the river bank approximately 75 meters towards the hillside on both sides of the Page No.

# 14/107 river Tuirial towards the hill for a distance of 85 kms from the dam Axis towards upstream side of the river. It was also mentioned that in the case of tributaries – Hachelui, Maitailui and Tuiawn the boundaries extend from the river banks 50 meters towards the hill for a distance of 8. 5 Km, 6 Km and 6 Km respectively from their confluence towards upstream side. The submergence area was mentioned in the Schedule to be 5210. 50 Hectares. It further appears that the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings was keeping in mind the Agreement dated 29. 05. 1996. 8. Thereupon the Respondents in the Revenue Department of the Government of Mizoram conducted demarcation as well as survey of the land from 07. 11. 1997 to 12. 12. 1997 and identified the lands to be acquired for Tuirial Hydro Electric Project.

The lands claimed to belong to the Petitioners in all the writ petitions were within the submergence area of the said project and it was to be acquired for the said public purpose. Subsequent thereto, a joint inspection/assessment of the land/crops within the project area were conducted with effect from 06. 01. 1998 to 16. 01. 1998 by NEEPCO as well as the officials of the Government of Mizoram and the land compensation bill was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Aizawl and sent to NEEPCO through the Government of Mizoram. Page No. # 15/107 9. It is pertinent herein to mention about a communication which was issued by the Executive Director of NEEPCO on 22. 03. 1999 wherein it was mentioned that as per Clause-8 of the MoU, the NEEPCO was yet to be served any compensation bill from the Government of Mizoram.

It was further mentioned that the payment can be released by NEEPCO against land compensation only after receipt of the land compensation proposal and bill from the Government of Mizoram. Under such circumstances, the Executive Director of NEEPCO requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram to pass necessary instructions to the concerned authorities so that the land compensation for the project area is settled at the earliest and to enable NEEPCO to release certain payments within the financial year. This communication is enclosed as Annexure-2 to WP(C) No. 45/2017. 10. It is further seen from the records that in the year 1998-99, NEEPCO released an amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- for 515. 21 Hectares of land out of 5380 Hectares towards crop compensation of 33 listed individuals. The formalities of handing over and taking over of the land had also been completed. The records further reveals that although initially the acquisition proceedings was initiated for 5210.

50 Hectares, but in the said land acquisition proceedings being Award No. 2/1998, only 515. 21 Hectares of land was acquired. This aspect of the matter would be seen from the affidavit filed by the Page No. # 16/107 Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram dated 05. 04. 2018 in the writ proceedings. It is also seen from the said affidavit that out of 515. 21 Hectares, 47. 43 Hectares were private lands and 467. 77 Hectares were Government lands. 11. Resultantly, on 20. 08. 2001 another notification was issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 in respect to plots of land admeasuring 4850 Hectares (approx. ). The Schedule to the said notification only mentioned “Submergent area of Tuirial Hydro Electric Project” – 4850 Hectares (approx. ) 12. It is seen from the records that pursuant thereto, thirty-five (35) persons approached this Court by filing three writ petitions being WP(C) No. 90/2002, WP(C) No.

91/2002 and WP(C) No. 92/2002. These writ petitioners claimed that they were issued Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) by the Revenue Authorities of the Government of Mizoram. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide an order dated 01. 08. 2002 by the learned Single Judge with a direction that the writ petitioners in those writ petitions shall file applications showing their interest in the land which was sought to be acquisitioned by the State Government and claim compensation, within a period of one month from the date of the said order. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Aizawl, who was the Page No. # 17/107 Respondent No. 3 therein was directed to expeditiously and not later than a period of four months dispose of, in accordance with law, the claim applications which the petitioners might have already filed or are likely to file in pursuance to the said order.

This Court further directed that if the land or any part or portion thereof is not required to be acquisitioned, the petitioners concerned may be informed accordingly by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Aizawl. It was further observed that if in any part or portion thereof possession had already been taken by the Respondents, they shall vacate within a period of four months. In addition to that, the petitioners in those writ petitions were also given the liberty to claim rents or mesne profits in respect to such possession, if permissible under law. 13. Subsequent to the said order dated 01. 08. 2002 passed in the above mentioned 3 (three) writ petitions, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl issued a communication to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department, Mizoram dated 13. 03.

2003 wherein it was mentioned that out of the 35 writ petitioners in the three writ petitions, the land belonging to 34 writ petitioners were found to have been located within the proposed submergent area of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project which falls under N. Serzawl and Ratu Village Council area. In the said communication, it was categorically stated that the land of those 34 Page No. # 18/107 writ petitioners in total admeasured 697. 27 Bighas. It was also mentioned that the remaining private land holdings other than of those petitioners in the three writ petitions within the area covered under the Third Phase Compensation Assessment Survey, were also verified and crops were counted. Under such circumstances, various details were forwarded to enable the State Government for issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. 14. Subsequent to the said communication dated 08. 04.

2003, the Government of Mizoram through its Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department published the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 thereby declaring that the lands admeasuring 697. 27 Bighas were required for acquisition for public purpose. The names of the 34 persons as well as the areas against their names were mentioned in the declaration. 15. In the meanwhile, it is also pertinent to mention that the District Collector, Aizawl upon the directions of the State of Mizoram also initiated acquisition proceedings for the balance amount i. e. 4849 Hectares in phase manner. The entire exercise carried out resulted in passing of four Awards, the details of which are herein under: (A) Award No. 4/2002 : Page No. # 19/107 This Award was made and published by the District Collector on 18. 06. 2002 for an amount of Rs. 8,04,90,627/- towards the payment of compensation to 352 awardees for trees, crops, plants etc. in respect of an area admeasuring 9310.

39 Bighas of land to be acquired for submergence area (Phase-I). The lands which fell within the purview of the Award were within the village council area of Mauchar, Saipum and North Hlimen. Under Section 4, notification was issued on 20. 08. 2001 and the declaration was made on 11. 04. 2002. In respect to the said award, the total temporary private holdings were 352 in numbers against 5508 Bighas and the remaining being 3802. 39 Bighas were Government Free Land. No compensation was determined in respect to land value on the ground that the land held were under temporary passes. (B) Award No. 5/2002 : This Award was made and published by the District Collector for an amount of Rs. 68,52,716/- to be paid to 74 numbers of awardees as compensation for trees, crops, plants etc. in respect of 857. 84 Bighas of land acquired for submergence area (Phase-II) of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project.

It is pertinent to mention that land in respect to this award fell within the area of the Village Council of Saipum and Mauchar. Section 4 notification was issued on 18. 01. 2002 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on Page No. # 20/107 10. 07. 2002. Out of the total land of 857. 84 Bighas, 635 Bighas were in respect of temporary private land holdings - 74 numbers and the remaining 222. 84 Bighas were Government free lands. No compensation was determined towards land value as the lands were held under temporary passes. (C) Award No. 5/2003 : This Award was made and published on 16. 07. 2003 for an amount of Rs. 5,58,60,928/- for payment to 348 numbers of awardees as compensation for trees, crops, plants etc. in respect of 16468. 77 Bighas of land acquired for submergence area (Phase-II) of the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. The land in respect of this award fell within the Village Council area of Mauchar, Zohmun, Falsang, North Hlimen and North Khawdungsei.

The notification under Section 4 was issued on 20. 08. 2001 and the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18. 11. 2002. Out of the total area admeasuring 16468. 77 Bighas, 5535. 5 Bighas were pertaining to temporary private land holdings of 366 awardees and the remaining 10933. 27 Bighas were Government free lands. No compensation was determined towards land value as the lands were held under temporary passes. (D) Award No. 6/2003: This Award was made and published on 25. 09. 2003. In respect to the instant Award, the area fell within the Village Councils of North Page No. # 21/107 Serzawl, Ratu, Sunhluchhit, North Hlimen, and Bookpui. As already stated above, the notification was issued under Section 4 on 20. 08. 2001 and the declaration was made on 09. 05. 2003. The award was for an amount of Rs. 8,85,50,461/- for payment to various awardees in respect of 9189. 94 Bighas of land (Phase-III). Out of the total 9189 Bighas of land, 5553.

51 Bighas pertained to Government free lands and 3636. 43 Bighas were in respect to temporary private holdings of 196 awardees. It is further relevant to mention that in respect to 1,35,25,344 sq. ft. of area, where 48 awardees had LSC, the compensation was determined on the value of the land at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. In this award, interest in terms which Section 23(1-A) of the Act of 1894 was awarded and further damage compensation for standing crops was awarded to the tune of Rs. 5,53,36,663/-. In total, the amount was determined at Rs. 8,85,50,461/-. The calculation so worked out in respect to this Award being relevant is mentioned herein under: 1 Cost of land covered by LSC Rs. 2,70,50,688/-measuring 1,35,25,344 sq. ft. - 2 12% interest w. e. f. 20. 08. 2001 to Rs. 61,63,110/- 14. 07. 2003 i. e. 693 days 3 Damage compensation for 5,53,36,663/-standing crops etc. - Total Rs. 8,85,50,461/- Page No.

# 22/107 It is very relevant herein to note that except the 48 awardees pertaining to Award No. 6/2003, no compensation was determined to the other awardees in connection with the four Awards for the value of land. All the four awards above mentioned were made and published with due approval of the Government of Mizoram as would be seen from the materials record. 16. The materials on record further show that the 34 writ petitioners in the three writ petitions i. e. WP(C) No. 90/2002, WP(C) No. 91/2002 and WP(C) No. 92/2002 who were the awardees in Award No. 6/2003, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 82/2004 seeking directions for payment of the compensation awarded by the Collector vide Award No. 6/2003 and further seeking directions for calculation of interest in terms with the provisions of the Act of 1894 with effect from 03. 03. 1997, i. e. the date when the initial notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the authority.

In the meantime, while the said writ petition was pending, these very petitioners had also sought for a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 objecting to the quantum of compensation. On the basis of the said objection, a reference proceedings being LA(C) No. 1/2004 was instituted. The learned Single Judge vide an order dated 07. 06. 2005 disposed of WP(C) No. 82/2004 holding inter alia that no relief can be granted as the Petitioners of the said writ petition had already approached the Page No. # 23/107 learned Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, the said writ petition was closed observing that the petitioners therein may pursue the reference proceedings before the learned Land Acquisition Judge for early disposal. 17. It is further seen that in the proceedings being LA(C) No. 1/2004, an order was passed on 26. 09. 2005 whereby the District Collector was directed to pay 30% solatium with interest @12% per annum from the date of the first notification.

Subsequent thereto, a supplementary award was made being Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 amounting to Rs. 4,66,06,436/- and the same was duly approved by the Government of Mizoram on 05. 01. 2006. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the said award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and consequently, the same attained finality. On the other hand, the passing of the Supplementary Award and it’s approval being granted shows that the State of Mizoram accepted the said decision of the learned Land Acquisition Judge. 18. The records further reveal that a communication was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District to the Chairman and Managing Director, NEEPCO for payment of compensation under the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project whereby informations were sought as to whether NEEPCO would clear the outstanding liabilities of compensation as per the Award No. 4/2002, Award No. 5/2003 and Page No. # 24/107 Award No.

6/2003 before resuming the project work and further when would the fourth and final phase of compensation assessment be conducted under the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project. 19. The records also reveal that the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 82/2004 yet again approached this Court by filing another writ petition being WP(C) No. 77/2006 seeking appropriate writ, direction(s) and order(s) so that the awarded amount as per the Award No. 6/2003 and the and the Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 be paid to the Petitioners. The learned Single judge vide an order dated 04. 12. 2007 disposed of the said writ petition whereby it was observed that the petitioners therein may initiate appropriate execution proceedings before the appropriate forum to ventilate the grievances. The learned Single Judge further in deciding the said writ petition made observations to the effect that the stand of the NEEPCO about its non-liability was not sustainable and runs counter to their earlier stand.

It was further observed that the NEEPCO in whose favour the acquisition was made would naturally be liable to deposit the awarded amount if not done in the meantime. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe from the contents of judgment and order dated 04. 12. 2007 that the counsel appearing for NEEPCO in the said proceedings made specific submissions as would appear at paragraph No. 5 of the said judgment and order dated 04. 12. 2007 to the effect that NEEPCO was not liable to pay on account of Page No. # 25/107 certain understanding culminating in MoU/Agreement between the State Respondents and NEEPCO. This aspect assumes importance as would be seen upon a further elaboration of the facts. 20. Being aggrieved by the said directions passed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order dated 04. 12. 2007 in WP(C) No. 77/2006, NEEPCO preferred a Writ Appeal before the Coordinate Bench of this Court which was registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No. 426/2007.

Vide an order dated 21. 04. 2010, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal observing inter alia that taking into account the scope of the writ petition, the High Court could either interfere in the matter by directing the State Government to pay the money or as observed by the learned Single Judge, could ask the petitioners to approach the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court. It was further observed that in such matters as there was very little scope of interference, the learned Single Judge ought not to have made observations as made in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment dated 04. 12. 2007. Accordingly, the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the said judgment were set aside and it was categorically observed that the parties would be free to settle their scores before the appropriate forum.

The above observations to the effect that the parties shall settle their scores before the appropriate forum would mean that the Coordinate Bench of this Court did not decide as to Page No. # 26/107 whether the State of Mizoram or NEEPCO would be liable to pay the compensation. The said aspect was left open to be decided in the appropriate forum. We further find it very appropriate herein to observe that these observations were made only in respect to the proceedings initiated by the 34 awardees in Award No. 6/2003 and Supplementary Award No. 6/2003. There is nothing on record to show that similar observations and findings in judicial proceedings insofar as the other three Awards or even in respect to the other Awardees of Award No. 6/2003 other than those 34 Awardees. 21. Contemporaneously, another development took place while these litigations were going on. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the year 2008 being PIL No.

15/2008 alleging inter alia that in the matter of land acquisition for installation of the project by NEEPCO, certain lands were offered by the State of Mizoram and the said lands were forest lands. But, however, certain persons exercising and utilizing their influence, politically or otherwise, lodged their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer. It was also alleged that such persons in connivance with the Government Officials had led to passing of awards in favour of such persons. On the basis of the said PIL being filed, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 21. 04. 2010 directed that the matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Page No. # 27/107 22. It is relevant to mention that the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted the charge sheet in the month of May, 2012 before the learned Special Judge, Mizoram.

In the said charge sheet, it was inter alia opined that out of 352 cultivators, 303 cultivators were the genuine cultivators of the three villages namely Saipum, Mauchar and North Hlimen. However, the remaining 49 persons were neither villagers of the village Saipum nor had been allotted any land as cultivator by the President, Village Council/ of Saipum village. It is however very pertinent to mention that the allegations so made in the charge sheet against those 49 persons are not petitioners before this Court. It is also very pertinent to observe that as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, these 49 persons were purportedly issued passes in the year 1983 by a person who had no authority to do so. The charge sheet only referred to the Award No. 4/2002 and not other Awards. 23. In the meantime, the 34 writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2006 filed an execution proceedings being registered as Execution Case No.

13/2010 before the Court of the learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 1, Aizawl. An order was passed on 10. 12. 2010 whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge opined that once the Award/Supplementary Award had been made and approved by the appropriate Government, the private land owners cannot be made to suffer due to inaction on the Page No. # 28/107 part of the authorities concerned. It was observed that the State of Mizoram had a legal obligation to make payment of the said awarded amount of compensation with effect from 15. 07. 2003 till full and final payment of the said Award by procuring the same from NEEPCO and thereupon depositing the same in the Court for payment to the Awardees within a period of two months from the date of the said order. These directions so passed, resulted in filing of another proceedings by NEEPCO being CRP No. 2/2011.

The said revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 02. 07. 2012. 24. It is pertinent to mention that the said revision application arose out of a proceedings being Execution Case No. 13/2010 filed by the 34 writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2006. The learned Single Judge vide the said judgment observed that as the State had acquired the land under the provisions of the Act of 1894 and as such was liable to pay compensation to the land owners. It was observed that the question as to whether the State Government should recover the amount from NEEPCO or whether NEEPCO should pay the said amount to the State Government is a matter to be decided by and between the said two authorities and nowhere concerns the land owners. The learned Single Judge further directed that the State Government had to satisfy the Award and therefore it had to deposit the awarded amount of compensation with the Page No. # 29/107 learned Executing Court.

In view of such observations, the learned Single Judge modified the order dated 10. 12. 2010 passed by the learned Executing Court by setting aside the direction to the effect “by procuring the same from NEEPCO”. The learned Single Judge further before parting with the records observed that in view of the CBI investigation and the stand taken by the Forest Department, Mizoram, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram was at liberty to look into the matter and take a conscious decision keeping in view the public interest involved. 25. It is further pertinent to mention that pursuant to the above mentioned judgment and order dated 02. 07. 2012, as there was no deposit by the State of Mizoram, the amount of compensation before the learned Executing Court, a contempt application was filed by the 34 petitioners alleging non-compliance to the judgment and order dated 02. 07. 2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011.

The said contempt proceedings were registered and numbered as Contempt Case No. 9/2014. However, the said contempt application was dismissed vide an order dated 08. 05. 2015 on the ground that there was no specific directions as regards the time frame for compliance with the order dated 02. 07. 2012 in CRP No. 2/2011. 26. The records further reveal that the dispute as regards payment of the compensation in respect to the awardees of the Page No. # 30/107 awards being Award No. 4/2002, Award No. 5/2002, Award No. 5/2003 and Award No. 6/2003 were the subject matter of discussions amongst the various officials and there were various departmental and inter-departmental correspondences including Cabinet Meetings. However, nothing further progressed as regards payment of the compensation. Resultantly, WP(C) No. 130/2013, WP(C) No. 16/2014 and WP(C) No. 118/2015 were filed by the awardees of Award No. 04/2002. 27.

At this stage, it is very relevant to mention that an association in the name and style of “Tuirial Compensation Claimants Association, Mizoram Phase-I” served an ultimatum to NEEPCO on 14. 07. 2003 to pay up the assessed awarded amount of Rs. 8. 05 crores falling which the said association would resort to road blocking and stoppage of work at the project. The said Association thereupon resorted to blockade with effect from 01. 08. 2003. Ultimately, after protracted discussions amongst the representatives of the Tuirial Compensation Claimants Association, Mizoram Phase-I; NEEPCO and the State of Mizoram, an amount of Rs. 4. 02 Crores was agreed to be released by NEEPCO by 10. 09. 2003. It was also agreed during the discussion that the remaining amount would be released upon availability of funds. It was under such circumstances, the agitation was called off and project work resumed from 14. 01. 2011. However, the remaining Page No. # 31/107 50% of the amount in respect to the Award No.

4/2002 was not released. Under such circumstances, the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 130/2013, WP(C) No. 16/2014 and WP(C) No. 118/2015 sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities including the State of Mizoram to pay the remaining 50% of the dues along with other consequential amounts. 28. The awardees of Award No. 5/2002 filed one writ petition being WP(C) No. 131/2013 seeking directions for payment of the awarded sum to them as per the provisions of the Act of 1894 thereby including solatium and interest. 29. The awardees of Award No. 5/2003 filed four writ petitions being WP(C) No. 132/2013, WP(C) No. 135/2013, WP(C) No. 116/2015 and WP(C) No. 22/2014 whereby they sought directions upon the State Respondents, including NEEPCO that the said authorities be directed to make payment of the awarded sum along with Solatium and interest as per the Act of 1894. 30. It is noteworthy to mention that the awardees in respect to the Award No. 4/2002, Award No.

5/2002 and Award No. 5/2003 and most of the awardees in Award No. 6/2003 did not file any objection under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, there was no award by any Land Acquisition Court within the meaning of Section 26 of the Act of 1894 in respect to such awardees. Under such Page No. # 32/107 circumstances, the understanding to the grievances raised in the writ petitions concerning these awards ought to be that they were seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the Respondents for payment of their entitlement as per the awards and further that the compensation towards solatium and interest be added to the awarded amounts. 31. Fifteen (15) awardees of Award No. 6/2003 who had not sought for any reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 117/2015 seeking directions that the Respondents should pay their entitlement. 32.

While the aforementioned writ petitions were pending, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram passed an order on 05. 08. 2016 holding inter alia that the LSCs so issued to those 34 writ petitioners were illegal as the same could not have been issued within such Riverine Reserve Forest. Further to that, as per the said order, these LSCs were issued directly by the then Assistant Settlement Officer without approval of the Government. Accordingly, the Revenue Department was directed to formally cancel all the LSCs of the land owners concerned thereof; the District Collector was directed to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the Award No. 6/2003 and the Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 and the Page No. # 33/107 concerned Government Advocate was directed to take appropriate steps before the Executing Court. 33. The records further reveal that after passing of the order dated 05. 08.

2016, show cause notices were issued to submit explanations as to why their LSCs should not be cancelled. This order dated 05. 08. 2016 and the basis on which the order was passed i. e. the notification dated 21. 06. 1965 were the subject matter of challenge in two writ petitions being WP(C) No. 45/2017 and WP(C) No. 51/2017. 34. It is pertinent at this stage to mention that none of the Awards being Award No. 4/2002; Award No. 5/2002; Award No. 5/2003; Award No. 6/2003 and the Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 have been cancelled or set aside in any proceedings including judicial proceedings. Various pleadings were filed by both the State Respondents as well as the NEEPCO justifying reasons for non-payment of the awarded sum to the petitioners in all the writ petitions as well as also justifying their stand as regards the issuance of the order dated 05. 08. 2016. In addition to that, the manner in which the notification dated 21. 06. 1965 was issued was brought on record. 35.

The learned Single Judge after hearing all the parties passed the impugned judgment and order holding inter alia that the Page No. # 34/107 notification dated 28. 01. 1965 was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 to 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Forest Act of 1955’) and accordingly the same was set aside and quashed. The learned Single Judge further opined that the grounds of delay and laches to challenge the gazetted notification dated 19. 05. 1965 notifying the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 cannot come on the way of the Petitioners’ right to seek relief of compensation under the Awards as the cause of action for challenge of the said notification dated 28. 01. 1965 by the Petitioners arose only from the date of knowledge of the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016.

It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1955, the Executive Committee of the then Mizo District Council or the Government of Mizoram (after amendment) had the power and authority to make allotment of lands to any individual or community granting rights of any nature to such individuals of a community as the case may be and therefore the land allotments made by issuing LSCs in favour of the Petitioners could not have been cancelled without following the procedure prescribed under the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 and the Rules made therein under. The learned Single Judge further observed that as these lands have been included in the final awards made under the Act of 1894, the question whether those were valid or not cannot be gone into at the belated stage. In addition to that, Page No.

# 35/107 the learned Single Judge also held that the claims of the Respondent Government being Riverine Reserve Forests were not raised literally in course of the acquisition proceedings leading to the said Awards which have attained finality on receiving the Government approval and as such the same cannot be raised at the belated stage to defeat the rights of the petitioners to compensation in terms of the award. 36. It was further observed that a land acquisition award undoubtedly had the sanctity of a decree, and as such, in the complicated backdrop of the claims and counterclaims of the parties, the awards in questions cannot be executed by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of issuance of a writ of mandamus or a certiorari as a shortcut method to compel the Government which had not bothered to pay the compensation to the awarded person whose landed properties had been acquisitioned more than 18 years ago for public purpose.

It was observed that the petitioners apparently have an alternative and efficacious remedy in the Act of 1894 to compel the Government to pay the compensation due to them and in view of the complicated nature of facts involved, the claims and counterclaims of the State Government, the writ jurisdiction cannot be the appropriate remedy to enforce their rights. With those above observations, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned Page No. # 36/107 judgment and order with the various observations and directions, the details of which have already been referred to in Paragraph No. 2 of the instant judgment. 37. Pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the instant eleven Writ Appeals were filed by the State of Mizoram. However, these Writ Appeals were withdrawn on 09. 11. 2022 with liberty to file afresh. It is relevant to take note of that the Supreme Court in I. A. Nos. 66542, 66546, 66548 of 2024 in WP(C) No. 202/1995 (In Re T. N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others) taking into consideration the submissions made by different parties, including the State of Mizoram as well as the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited to the effect that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was causing various problems, vide an order dated 18. 09. 2024 restored the instant batch of Writ Appeals. It is pertinent to take note of that the Supreme Court while restoring the appeals observed that restoration of the appeals were necessary in view of the huge ramifications caused by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the cascading effect that it may have on various issues including construction of highways or rights of citizens. The Supreme Court further requested this Court to decide these appeals as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a Page No. # 37/107 period of three months from the date of the said order.

It is under such circumstances, the Writ Appeals have been listed for hearing before us. 38. Before moving forward, we would like to take note of that the Tuirial Hydro Electric Project is presently in operation after the inauguration done by the Prime Minister of India on 16. 12. 2017. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: 39. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Mizoram submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 27. 01. 2021 committed gross legal error by not considering several important judgments of the Supreme Court pertaining to reserve forest areas. He submitted that the non-consideration had resulted in setting aside of the notification dated 28. 01. 1965. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to take note of the notification dated 28. 01.

1965 published in the Assam Gazette pertaining to the Riverine Reserve Forest in its proper perspective. 40. The learned Advocate General further submitted that upon the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act of 1980’) no State Government or other authority, without the Page No. # 38/107 prior approval of the Central Government can make any order directing that any reserve forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved and that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the non-obstinate Clause in Section 2 of the Act of 1980, the said provision overrides all other laws for the time being in force in the State of Mizoram. 41.

He submitted that the declaration/notification of the Riverine Reserve Forest (RRF) has to be understood to have started only from the issue of the preliminary notification dated 16. 04. 1956 followed by the final notification dated 28. 01. 1965. Drawing reference to the various old records available in the Mizoram State Archives, the learned Advocate General submitted that the actual history of the Riverine Reserve Forest dates back to the year 1897, which was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 27. 01. 2021. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a gross legal error while quashing the notification published in the Assam Gazette dated 19. 05. 1965 on the ground that as per the learned Single Judge, it was inconceivable that the preliminary notification of the Riverine Reserve Forest could Page No. # 39/107 be dated 16. 04.

1956 when it was published in the “Zoram Hriattirna” in it’s issue dated 29. 02. 1956 which was much prior to the date of the notification. In that regard the learned Advocate General has drawn the reference to the true copies of the “Zoram Hriattirna” of the issues dated 15. 01. 1956, 31. 01. 1956, 15. 02. 1956 and 15. 03. 1956 which shows that the dates of the notification/orders mentioned is after the date of issue of “Zoram Hriattirna”. He therefore submitted that it was a general practice of publishing a notification in “Zoram Hriattirna” which was published at a date prior to the issue of the notification. 42. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order whereby the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 was set aside and quashed, failed to take note of the ramifications it would cause as well as the environmental degradation. He submitted that in terms with the notification dated 28. 01.

1965, the total area which was reserved as Riverine Reserve Forest was 1832. 50 Sq. Kms. and setting aside of the said notifications would result in reduction in 1930 Sq. Kms which was quite significant and there is every likelihood of environmental damage, ecological imbalance resulting in illegal felling of forest trees, illegal sand mining, etc. He therefore submitted that this aspect of the matter was duly considered by the Supreme Court and it is under such circumstances, the Writ Appeals Page No. # 40/107 were restored. 43. The learned Advocate General further submitted that at the time when the acquisition proceedings was initiated, the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 was holding the field. That being so, the entire land acquisition proceedings and subsequent awards based on such proceedings could not have been made and therefore the question of directions for enforcement of the awards in question do not arise. 44. He submitted that the order dated 05. 08.

2016 passed by the Chief Secretary were based on the factors with respect to the declaration of the land as a forest area and the non-validity of the land passes, land settlement certificates and pattas given in the forest area and as such the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016 ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 45. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned Single Judge completely erred in law in not taking into consideration the aspect of delay and laches in challenging the notification dated 28. 01. 1965. He submitted that the writ petitions were filed after 52 years from the date of the issuance of the notification dated 28. 01. 1965. The learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the cause of action for challenging the notification would have been in the year 1965 or immediately thereupon and not when the LSCs Page No. # 41/107 were cancelled vide an order dated 05. 08. 2016.

He submitted that creation of a right is always subject to the law and as such the LSCs were subject to the Act of 1955 and the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965. SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS: 46. Per contra, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents in WA No. 8/2021, WA No. 11/2021 and WA No. 13/2021 submitted that the impugned notification dated 19. 06. 1965 was void, invalid and nonest in the eye of law inasmuch as the same was not made in accordance with law. He submitted that the statutory provisions under Section 15 to 21 of the Act of 1955 were not complied with as there was no preliminary notification before issuance of the final notification. Referring to the issue dated 29. 02. 1956 of the “Zoram Hriattirna”, wherein the Notification dated 15. 04.

1956 was published, he submitted that a reading of the same would show that it was a final notification under Section 14 and 21 of the Act of 1955 declaring the Council Reserve Forest with effect from 01. 03. 1956. He, therefore, submitted if the notification dated 15. 04. 1956 cannot be construed to be a preliminary notification, the final notification so issued on 28. 01. 1965 is bad in law. Additionally, the learned Senior Page No. # 42/107 counsel further submitted that it is quite strange and surprising as to how a notification dated 16. 04. 1956 could have been published in the “Zoram Hriattirna” dated 29. 02. 1956. In that regard, the learned Senior counsel submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the same must be done in that way or not at all. 47. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the right to challenge the notification only arose when the said notification dated 28. 01.

1965 was used as an instrument for passing the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016 by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram by which the LSCs of the petitioners were directed to be cancelled. He submitted that all throughout the acquisition proceedings as well as till the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016 was passed, the Government of Mizoram had all along supported the case of the Petitioners to the effect that the petitioners who were the awardees were entitled to the compensation. The State of Mizoram never raised the issue of reserved forest or the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 and this aspect of the matter can be seen from a perusal of the judgment dated 02. 07. 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CRP No. 2/2011 which had attained finality. 48. Further referring to the various orders being passed by the Page No.

# 43/107 learned Single Judge as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the various proceedings, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the State of Mizoram had all along supported the case of the awardees to be entitled to the compensation. He therefore submitted that at this stage the State Government cannot be permitted to take a different stand. In that regard, the learned Senior counsel submitted that a litigant cannot be permitted to approbate as well as reprobate at the same time. 49. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the Awards having attained finality, the rights of the awardees to be entitled to compensation cannot be nullified, as it would amount to violation of provisions of the Act of 1894 as well as Article 300A of the Constitution. He submitted that the right of restitution through fair compensation have been recognized as an integral part of the process of acquisition.

In addition to that, the learned Senior counsel further submitted that the order dated 05. 08. 2016 violates the mandate of Article 166(1) of the Constitution. 50. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in WA No. 5/2021, WA No. 6/2021, WA No. 7/2021, WA No. 9/2021, WA No. 10/2021, WA No. 11/2021 and WA No. 12/2021 made similar submissions to what Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior counsel made and in order to avoid repetition, Page No. # 44/107 the same are not again reiterated in the instant judgment. Be it as it may, the learned counsel further submitted that this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent is sitting as a Court of Correction and has the authority to correct its own order in exercise of the same jurisdiction vested in the Single Bench.

This submission has been made in view of the fact that we during the course of hearing made a specific query upon the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the various writ petitioners who are the private respondents in the present appeals as to what alternative and efficacious remedy, the Petitioners who have not sought any reference in terms with Section 18 of the Act of 1894 had inasmuch as prima facie it transpired that the Executing Court cannot execute an award passed by the District Collector inasmuch as such award(s) would not come within the meaning of ‘decree’ in terms of Section 26(2) of the Act of 1894. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR NEEPCO: 51. Mr. V. K. Jindal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the NEEPCO submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to any amount from NEEPCO. He submitted that vide the communication dated 10. 08.

1990, the Forest Department of the Government of Mizoram informed that the entire submerged area would fall inside the Riverine Reserve Forest of Tuirial. It was also Page No. # 45/107 mentioned in the said communication that since the area fell within the Riverine Reserve Forest, issuance of either LSCs or Periodic Patta for WRC and garden was completely illegal. He submitted that based upon such report, NEEPCO entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29. 05. 1996 with the State Government of Mizoram. Subsequent thereto, the Secretary (Forest), Government of Mizoram took up the matter with the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest vide various communications dated 10. 04. 1992, 15. 10. 1993 and 05. 11. 1999 for seeking approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 for diversion of the entire 5,380 Hectares of forest land for Tuirial Hydro Electric project.

The Government of India vide a communication dated 16. 03. 2000 conveyed its approval to the Secretary (Forest) Government of Mizoram, subject to fulfillment of the conditions contained therein which also included the condition relating to payment of compensatory afforestation over equal area of non-forest land which was fixed by the State Government to the tune of Rs. 24. 46 crores. The said amount of Rs. 24. 46 crores have already been paid to the Forest Department of the Government of Mizoram and as such NEEPCO is not liable to pay any compensation. 52. In addition to that, the learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the MoU dated 29. 05. 1996 entered Page No.

# 46/107 into between the Government of Mizoram and NEEPCO and referred to Clause-8 of the said MOU which provided that the land required for the project would be acquired by the State Government and handed over to NEEPCO on payment of necessary fee to the State Government as assessed by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the acquired land according to the Forest Department of the State Government was a forest land, the amount paid for compensatory afforestation was the necessary fee i. e. Rs. 24. 46 Crores which have been duly paid to the Government of Mizoram. He further submitted that in various proceedings, this Court had categorically held that the NEEPCO was not liable for payment of the compensation. In that regard, he made reference to the order dated 21. 04. 2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 426/2007 as well as the order dated 02. 07. 2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011. 53.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Tuirial Hydro Electrict Project work which commenced had to be suspended with effect from 09. 06. 2004 because of an agitation program initiated by the land owners association. He submitted that the said project work only recommenced with effect from 14. 01. 2011 after an undertaking given by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram to the Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India dated 29. 06. 2010 that the State Government would maintain the law and order in and around the project area Page No. # 47/107 and also would do its best to settle the rehabilitation and resettlement issues including the crop compensation which would be subject to the outcome of the PIL pending in the Gauhati High Court.

It is therefore the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for NEEPCO that taking into account the above aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order did not issue any directions upon the NEEPCO for payment of any amount, rather, it was only the State Government who was given the liberty to make payment. POINTS THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION: 54. From the materials on record as well as the submissions so made by the learned counsels, the following points for determination arise for consideration. (i) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Act of 1955? (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the impugned order dated 05. 08. 2016 passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram? (iii) What is the effect on Award No. 6/2003, Supplementary Award No. 6/2003 as well as Award No. 4/2002, Award No.

5/2002 Page No. # 48/107 and Award No. 5/2003 if the points for determination Nos. (i) and/or (ii) are decided in favour of the Appellants? (iv) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions to seek alternative remedy for execution of the awards in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1894? (v) What relief or reliefs the parties before us are entitled to? IN Re : THE FIRST POINT FOR DETERMINATION:- 55. Let us first take up the first point of determination. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order had set aside the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 published in the Assam Gazette dated 19. 05. 1965 on the ground that while making the final notification under Section 21 of the Act of 1955, no preliminary notification as required under Section 15 of the Act of 1955 was ever published in the official bulletin of the Council “Zoram Hriattirna”.

The learned Single Judge further held that there was no delay in the challenge to the said notification dated 28. 01. 1965 inasmuch as the cause of action to challenge the said notification to the petitioners arose only on and from the date of the order dated 05. 08. 2016 passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram. In addition to that, the learned Single Judge also held that Page No. # 49/107 the notification dated 16. 04. 1956 under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Act of 1955 was published by the Executive Committee of the Mizo District Council which the State Respondents claimed to be the preliminary notification in the “Zoram Hriattirna” in its issue dated 29. 02. 1956 i. e. before the date of the notification without any explanation and as both the dates could not be reconciled the said Notification was contradictory.

It was also observed that there was an unexplained delay of 10 years from the preliminary notification in publishing of the final notification in the Assam Gazette dated 19. 05. 1965 by the State Government. It is on the basis of above, the learned Single Judge came to an opinion that the impugned notification dated 28. 01. 1965 which was published in the Assam Gazette dated 19. 05. 1965 was contrary to the Act of 1955 and accordingly was set aside and quashed. 56. The Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) was enacted by the Mizo District Council to provide for management of forest in the Mizo Autonomous District which are not reserved forests. The said Act came into force w. e. f. 1st of January, 1956. (A) Section 2(4) of the Act of 1955 defines “Council Reserve Forest” to mean any forest constituted as such by or under the orders of the Mizo District Council. In Section 2(13) of the Act of 1955, “reserved forest” has been defined to have the same meaning Page No.

# 50/107 as assigned to it by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. (B) Section 14 to Section 21 of the Act of 1955 deals with the procedure for constituting a Council Reserve Forest. It starts with a notification of proposal to constitute a Council Reserve Forest as stipulated in Section 15 which is required to be published by way of a notification in “Zoram Hriattirna” stipulating (a) declaring that the Executive Committee proposed to constitute such land a reserve forest; (b) specifying as nearly as possible the situation and limits of such land; and (c) inviting claims of rights and objections.

(C) Subsequent to issuance of such notification, the Executive Committee which is defined in Section 2(8) of the said Act of 1955 shall cause the area to be surveyed and demarcated by one or more of the Council Forest Officers not below the rank of a Forester and who shall enquire into any right of any person in the area and shall also submit report to the Executive Committee which shall deal with all points including compensation involved or alteration of the area recommended. (D) Section 17 of the Act of 1955 stipulates the manner in which claims of right(s) on the land and when, to whom and how objections against the proposed Council Reserve Forest is required to be submitted i. e. in writing to the Executive Committee within Page No. # 51/107 120 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 15 of the Act of 1955.

(E) Section 18 stipulates that there shall be a Council Forest Tribunal who shall decide all claims of rights on land, as well as all objections against the proposed reserve forest. The orders of the Forest Tribunal shall be published forthwith in the Assam Gazette. (F) In terms with Section 19 of the Act of 1955, a provision for Appeal is provided whereby an Appeal could be filed before the Executive Committee within 30 days of the order issued by the Council Forest Tribunal. (G) Section 21 stipulates the issuance of the final notification constituting the Council Reserve Forest.

In terms of the said Section, the Executive Committee shall, after disposal of all appeals, publish in the Assam Gazette, the final notifications specifying the limits of the Council Reserve Forest incorporating therein any changes and modifications made from the preliminary notifications under Section 15 of the Act of 1955 and declaring the same to be a Council Reserve Forest from the date fixed by such notification. (H) It is also very appropriate herein to take note of Section 22 of the Act of 1955 which stipulates that no person shall have any right of any nature in or over the land within the area of the Council Page No. # 52/107 Reserve Forest except those that may have been conceded in the final notification referred to in Section 21 of the Act of 1955.

Be that as it may, the said provision also empowered the Executive Committee or any other officer empowered in that behalf to permit or grant rights of any nature to an individual or community for the benefit of community or communities. 57. It is seen from the materials so placed by way of an additional affidavit filed by the State on 21. 10. 2024 that even prior to the Act of 1955 was enacted, there were certain interdepartmental communications as far back as on in the year 1951 from which it appears that there existed a Riverine Reserve Order which led to difficulties for the Chakma Community to live in Lushai Hills as there would be no jhooming land for them. It is also seen from the extracts placed on record that as per the Riverine Reserve Order which was then holding the field, an area of 1 mile radius on both sides of the banks of the river that can be used for plying boats were reserved by the Forest Department and the people were not allowed to start jhooming cultivation.

There was also a penalty for contravention of such order inasmuch as such persons who contravened the Order were to be prosecuted. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record on what basis the said Riverine Reserve Order was made. Additionally, the Appellants failed to show the source of power to make the Riverine Reserve Order prior to the Page No. # 53/107 enactment of the Act of 1955. 58. The records further reveals that on 16. 04. 1956, a notification was issued by the Chief Executive Member, Mizo District Council which was published in the 29. 02. 1956 edition of the “Zoram Hriattirna” wherein it was mentioned that the Executive Committee of the Mizo District Council was pleased to declare that forest within 1 (one) mile on either side of 16 navigable rivers would be Council Reserve Forest. The publication of the Notification dated 16. 04. 1956 in the edition of 29. 02.

1956 of the “Zoram Hriattirna” assumes relevance taking into account that the learned Single Judge in setting aside the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 was of the opinion as to how a notification of a subsequent date could have been published in a prior dated edition of the “Zoram Hriattirna”. 59. The learned Advocate General while referring to the various editions of the “Zoram Hriattirna” enclosed to the additional affidavit filed on 21. 10. 2024 submitted that it was the general practice followed then of publishing of notifications in an earlier edition of “Zoram Hriattirna”. This aspect appears to be true inasmuch as a perusal of Annexure-7 series to the said Affidavit shows that the Executive Order No. 3/1956 dated 01. 02. 1956 was published in the edition of 15. 01. 1956. Similarly, the notification dated 18. 02. 1956 was published in the Edition of 31. 01. 1956 and so on. Be that as it Page No.

# 54/107 may, a question arises as to whether the Preliminary Notification being not published in a future edition of the “Zoram Hriattirna” would nullify the final notification that too after a period of 52 years when such final Notification was holding the field. 60. We have also perused the final Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 published in the Assam Gazzette dated 19. 05. 1965 whereby the area within half a mile on either side of 16 rivers mentioned therein was constituted as Council Reserve Forest with effect from the date of the notifications dated 16. 04. 1956 and 16. 09. 1957. There is no material on record to show that there was any challenge to the issuance of both the Preliminary Notification or the final Notification till the filing of the Writ Petitions i. e. WP(C) No. 45/2017 and WP(C) No. 51/2017. At this stage, we find it apropos to observe that though the Preliminary Notification dated 16. 04.

1956 appears at the first blush to be a final Notification but the manner in which the said Notification issued i. e. made by the Executive Committee and published in the “Zoram Hriattirna” would show that the said Notification was in fact a Preliminary Notification and not the Final Notification. 61. At this stage, we find a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658 which is apt to rely upon Page No. # 55/107 wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the publication or promulgation of the notification and how and when the notification becomes effective. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein below. “15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes.

Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the “conscientious good man” seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes’s “unconscientious bad man” seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important, than governance by parliamentary legislation. But unlike parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not.

It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is Page No. # 56/107 confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient. ” (emphasis supplied to the underlined portion) 62.

From a perusal of the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that the Supreme Court observed that in order that a subordinate legislation, as in the instant case the notification dated 28. 01. 1965, is required to be published in the manner in which parent statute or the subordinate legislation prescribes and if there is no prescription, then in the customarily recognized official channel i. e. the Official Gazette. A perusal of Section 21 of the Act of 1955 would show that the manner of publication have been categorically mentioned to be the Assam Gazette. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the said notification would take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. 63. Therefore, from the above, it would be seen that with the publication of the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 in Assam Gazette on 19. 05. 1965, the notification dated 28. 01.

1965 had become operational and taking into account the language of Section 21 of the Act of 1955, the said notification dates back to 16. 04. 1956. Under such circumstances, the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 had come into operation and was holding the field. The cause of action for challenge to the said notification would therefore arise upon the issuance of the said notification if the Notification was not made in Page No. # 57/107 accordance with the prescription of law and in this case, the Act of 1955. 64. We further find it very apt to observe that the effect of the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 was that the area within half a mile of the banks of the 16 rivers were made “Council Reserve Forest”. Therefore, any rights or claims accrued subsequent to the Notification was subject to the said Notification and by virtue thereof, Section 22 of the Act of 1955 that too w. e. f. 16. 04. 1956 which was date as per the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965.

In other words, the effect of the Notification had been statutorily imposed by Section 22 of the Act of 1955 and as such all rights, liabilities, claims etc. in the areas which fell within the Notification were subject to the said Notification. Accordingly, the rights of the Petitioners over the land were also subject to the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965. The question of having no knowledge of the Notification or the notification was not applied till 05. 08. 2016 is totally misconceived. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in law in arriving at his findings that the date of the knowledge of the Notification should be the order dated 05. 08. 2016 passed by the Chief Secretary. 65. In that perspective, the question arises as to whether the learned Single Judge decided the aspect of delay and laches as per Page No. # 58/107 the settled principles. The learned Single Judge held that the date of the knowledge of the notification dated 28. 01.

1965 should be attributed to the date of the order dated 05. 08. 2016 and as such, the writ petitions challenging the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 did not suffer from any delay or laches. We have already opined supra that such a view was legally not sustainable. Be that as it may, we find it necessary at this stage to deal with the concept of delay and laches infra. 66. It is the settled principle of law that the Limitation Act, 1963 sets out the maximum period within which suits, appeals, and applications must be filed before the Court. Cases brought after this prescribed period are typically barred due to delay unless the Court condones the delay. However, it is important to take note of that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ proceedings and therefore there is no prescribed period within which a writ proceedings needs to be filed. Be that as it may, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aflatoon vs Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Others reported in (1975) 4 SCC 265 (Paragraph 11), a writ petition filed belatedly after a considerable delay is barred by the operation of the doctrine of laches. It was observed that the said doctrine of laches is a common law principle disallowing a claim because it has been brought to the Court after an unreasonable lapse of time. It is based upon the maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura Page No. # 59/107 subveniunt” which means that the law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those that sleep thereupon. Hence, even in absence of the prescription of a statutory time limit for its filing, a claim that has been filed after a significant delay can be rejected at the threshold by invoking the doctrine. 67.

There are various reasons why the doctrine of laches are applied to writ proceedings inasmuch as if a claim brought after considerable delay are entertained, it may affect third party rights which have been established during the time lapse and it would also be unjust to prejudice innocent parties due to tardiness of the claimants. Additionally, considering a delayed claim could be unfair to the opposite party as they may have lost access to crucial evidence needed to defend any claim. Reopening a case after a significant delay could thus place the opposite party at a disadvantage, potentially resulting in an unjust or an inaccurate outcome. Moreover, it is essential to put a time limit on proceedings to provide certainty and prevent confusion from cases being in perpetual flux. 68. In a recent judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court i. e.

In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880, the majority opinion authored by His Lordships Surya Kant J. opined that it is a settled Page No. # 60/107 law that the doctrine of laches is not an inviolable legal rule but a rule of practice that must be supplemented with sound exercise of judicial discretion. It was observed that under two circumstances, the doctrine of laches cannot be applied. First, are those cases where the claims affect the public at large and secondly, those cases where the vires of a statute are challenged vis-à-vis the Constitution. In other words, when cases arise pertaining to promoting the larger public interest and if such a claim affects the public at large, the Court should go into the merits of the case. It was further observed that taking into account the idea of transformative constitutionalism, where a vires of a statute is challenged vis-à-vis a Constitution, the doctrine of laches cannot be applied. 69.

The facts above narrated would show that 47 Petitioners have assailed the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 for the reason that the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram had passed the order dated 05. 08. 2016 based on the said Notification dated 28. 01. 1965. There is no public interest element involved. Moreover, the only ground taken to challenge the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 is that the Preliminary Notification was published in a prior edition of “Zoram Hriattirna” and there was a delay of 10 years in publishing the final notification. The said challenge at best can be attributed as a challenge to the Preliminary Notification not published in Page No. # 61/107 accordance with Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The challenge on the ground of lapse of 10 years in publishing the final Notification has no legs to stand taking into account that the Act of 1955 do not mandate within what time the final Notification is required to be issued.

Therefore, as there was no public interest or there being no challenge to the vires of a statute vis-à-vis the Constitution, the exceptions for non-application to the doctrine of delay and laches are not there. On this count alone, we are of the opinion that the direction so passed by the learned Single Judge to set aside the notification dated 28. 01. 1965 which was published in the Assam Gazette on 19. 05. 1965 is bad in law for which the impugned judgment insofar as setting aside the Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 is required to be interfered with. 70. In addition to that, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account that a writ of certiorari being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on a mere asking.

The Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal or invalid, the High Court can still refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. The learned Single Judge with due respect, did not take into account that setting aside of a Notification dated 28. 01. 1965 constituting a Riverine Reserve Page No. # 62/107 Forest would have huge ramification as an area admeasuring 1832. 50 sq. kms. which was all along a Riverine Reserve Forest with effect from 16. 04. 1956 would be rendered a non-forest land thereby seriously impacting the ecological balance and would result in environmental damage leading to illegal felling of forest trees, illegal sand mining, etc. The learned Single

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.