Gauhati High Court
WA/71/2018 on 30 October, 2024
GAHC010011542018
2024:GAU-AS:10605
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1. WRIT APPEAL NO.71 OF 2018
1. The State of Mizoram, represented by the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram,
Revenue Department, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796001.
2. The Commissioner, Revenue Department,
Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram -796001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District,
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796701.
.....Appellants
-Versus-
1. Sh R. Lalthanzauva,
Son of R. Laizawnga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
2. Sh. R. Lalhriatpuia,
Son of R. Lalthanzauva, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
3. Sh. Sapsiama,
Son of Pahla-a, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
4. Sh. R.K. Hmangaiha,
Son of Laichhuma, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
5. Sh. Rothanga,
Son of Sapkunga (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 1|Page
6. Sh. R. Lalhmingmawia,
Son of Lalruma, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
7. Smt. Rotluangi,
Wife of C. Thangchema, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
8. Smt. R. Lawmzuali,
Daughter of R. Thanzova, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
9. Smt. Lalramnghaki,
Daughter of Hengluaia, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
10. Sh. K. Sangzuala,
Son of K. Romawia, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
11. Sh. K. Zodingliani,
Son of K. Romawia, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
12. Smt. K. Lalbiakliani,
Daughter of K. Romawia, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
13. Sh. F. Zokhuma,
Son of Vaichana (L), Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
14. Sh. C. Laldinliana,
Son of Thangchema, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
15. Sh. K. Lalthansanga,
Son of K. Tlangmawia, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
16. Sh. K. Lalbiaktluanga,
Son of Thanghuma, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
17. Sh. R. Lalzawnga,
Son of Saia, Resident of Lunglawn, District: Lunglei,
Mizoram - 796707.
18. Sh. C. Hualhnuna,
Son of Khawliana, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 2|Page
19. Sh. K. Laltluanga,
Son of Biaka, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
20. Smt. Lalbiakdiki,
Daughter of Lalmuana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
21. Sh. K. Lalbiakzama,
Son of K. Lalchhandama, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
22. Sh. R. Lalhmingmawia,
Son of Lalruma, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
23. Sh. Lalzari,
Daughter of Vauthuama, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
24. Sh. H.S. Thangnghilhlova,
Son of Sangzela, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
25. Sh. R. Lawmkima,
Son of R. Liankila (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
26. Smt. Lalbiaki,
Daughter of Pachawnga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
27. Ngunhulha,
Son of Mangsaia, Resident of Tawipui South,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
28. Sh. Vanhnuna,
Son of Hrangdailova, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
29. Sh. L.H. Lalmawia,
Son of Darruma, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
30. Sh. Sangzova,
Son of Lamputa, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
31. Sh. Darkunga,
Son of Zikkawia (L), Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 3|Page
32. Smt. P.C. Lianmawii,
Daughter of P.C. Darkunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
33. Sh. R.K. Kamlova,
Son of Saitluanga, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
34. Sh. R. Lalmuanpuia,
Son of R. Kaprumvunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
35. Smt. Hmingthangi,
Daughter of Liankila, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
36. Sh. Ronghinglova,
Son of Liankila, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
37. Smt. Lalhmangaihzuali,
Daughter of Chhunthangi, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
38. Smt. Linda Laltlanthangi,
Daughter of S. Ronghinglova, Resident of
Lunglawn, District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
39. Sh. R.K. Pahlira,
Son of R.K. Laichhuma, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
40. Sh. R.K. Lalhmuaka,
Son of R.K. Laichhuma, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
41. Smt. Chhunthangi,
Daughter of R.K. Pahlira, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
42. Sh. Laldawngliana,
Son of R. Thangkima (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
43. Sh. L.H. Lalmawia,
Son of L.H. Darruma, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
44. Smt. Zonuni,
Daughter of Rotluanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 4|Page
45. Sh. Lalsiammawia,
Son of Vannghaka, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
46. Sh. Lalchhuanmawia,
Son of Laltlinga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
47. Sh. R. Vansanga,
Son of Rongenga, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
48. Sh. K. Lalthanmawia,
Son of K. Bawla, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
49. Sh. C. Lalhluta,
Son of Pa Tuaha, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
50. Smt. C. Lalbiakdiki,
Daughter of C. Zathuama, Resident of Chanmari,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
51. Smt. K. Zohmingthangi,
Daughter of K. Romawia, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
52. Sh. K. Romawia,
Son of Vaibila, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
53. Smt. K. Zolawmi,
Daughter of K. Romawia, Resident of Lunglawn-I,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
54. Sh. R. Lalrinliana,
Son of R. Lalthanzauva, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
55. Smt. C. Lalbiakthangi,
Daughter of R. Lawmkima, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
56. Sh. K. Dengmawia,
Son of Lukawlha, Resident of Sethlun, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
57. Sh. Mankunga,
Son of Aichhunga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 5|Page
58. Sh. R. Chhuanvawra,
Son of Chhankima, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
59. Sh. Ramnghaka,
Son of Thianbawiha, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
60. Sh. Rosiamliana,
Son of Thanghnuna (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
61. Smt. Hmingmawii,
Daughter of Zodingliana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
62. Sh. F. Dura,
Son of Thanthuama (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
63. Sh. F. Lalhmingthanga,
Son of F. Aizawna, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
64. Sh. F. Vanlallawma,
Son of Aizawna, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
65. Sh. F. Malsawma,
Son of F. Dura, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
66. Lalhmachhuana Khiangte,
Son of K. Dengmawia, Resident of Sethlun, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
67. Sh. R. Lalmuankima,
Son of Thanghnuna, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
68. Sh. Vanlaltama,
Son of Lalthazuala, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
69. Sh. Zothankhuma,
Son of Vanlallawma, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
70. Sh. Robuanga,
Son of Rumliana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 6|Page
71. Sh. F. Saihranga,
Son of Hangpawla, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
72. Smt. Lalhlunthangi,
Wife of R. Lalthanliana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
73. Sh. R.L. Thanliana,
Son of R. Lalthanga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
74. Sh. Lalnghaksanga,
Son of Rosiamliana, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
75. Sh. F. Aizawna,
Son of Kaiphunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
76. Sh. R. Kaptluanga,
Son of Lalthanga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
77. Sh. F. Lalthantluanga,
Son of Aizawna, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
78. Smt. Lalengmawii,
Daughter of Sialngena, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
79. Sh. R. Thanseia,
Son of Hauhlira, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
80. Smt. Zamawii,
Daughter of Hranghleia, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
81. Sh. Hengluaia,
Son of Chhawnchia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
82. Sh. K. Rohnuna,
Son of K. Zamdula, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
83. Smt. Lalrammawii,
Daughter of Thangchhinga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 7|Page
84. Sh. Lalfakawma,
Son of C. Vanlalmuana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
85. Sh. Vanlalrina,
Son of K. Rohnuna, Resident of Lunglawn
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
86. Smt. Hrangliani,
Daughter of Lalluta, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
87. Sh. C. Vanlalmuana,
Son of Patuaha (L), Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
88. Sh. Lalrimawia,
Son of Zadinga, Resident of Rahsiveng, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
89. The Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110011.
90. The Director (NORTH East-II), Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110011.
91. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Assam
Rifles Headquarters (HQ DGAR),
Shillong, Meghalaya - 793011.
92. The Deputy Inspector General, 23 Sector
Headquarters, Assam Rifles, Katla, Aizawl,
Mizoram, C/O 99 APO.
.....Respondents
2. WRIT APPEAL NO.70 OF 2018
1. The State of Mizoram, represented by the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram,
Revenue Department, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796001.
2. The Commissioner, Revenue Department,
Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram -796001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796701.
.....Appellants
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 8|Page
-Versus-
1. Sh. Malsawmtluanga,
Son of Lalmuankima, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
2. Sh. Lalbiakhluna,
Son of Haukhuma, Resident of Zohnuai, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
3. Sh. Vanlalhuma,
Son of Haukhuma, Resident of Zohnuai, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
4. Sh. C Lalthangliana,
Son of Haukhuma, Resident of Zohnuai, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
5. Sh. Lalbiakdika,
Son of Laltawnga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
6. Smti Rimawii,
Daughter of Padaia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
7. Sh. Lalrina Sailo,
Son of Vanhranga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
8. Smt. Kamliani,
Daughter of Zopuithanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
9. Sh. Rampara,
Son of Zopuithanga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
10. Sh. Kumthara,
Son of Chalbawia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
11. Sh. R. Lalmuanpuia,
Son of R. Kaprumvunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
12. Sh. R. Chalkhuma,
Son of Hrangkunga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
13. Smt. Zorinpuii,
Daughter of Lalchhuana, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 9|Page
14. Sh. Chawngthangpuia,
Son of Chalbawia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
15. Sh. R. Lalrawna,
Son of Hrangkunga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
16. Sh. Siammawia,
Son of Vannghaka, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
17. Sh R.K. Vanlalruala,
Son of R.K. Vannghaka, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
18. Smt Chawngpari,
Daughter of C. Patea, Resident of Rahsiveng,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
19. Sh. H.S. Rohmingthanga,
Son of Thangchhinga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
20. Sh. Thangchhinga,
Son of Lalkhuma, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
21. Sh. Chuaukunga,
Son of Lamputa, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
22. Sh T. Thanchhunga,
Son of Vanhnuna, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
23. Sh. F. Lalneihsanga,
Son of F. Zothuama, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
24. Sh. Lalramthara,
Son of Taichhunga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
25. Smt. R. Biaksiami,
Daughter of R. Lalthanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
26. Sh. Rotlaia,
Son of Taisena, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 10 | P a g e
27. Sh. Krishna,
Son of Hemlala, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
28. Sh. Nirmal Raj Uppadya,
Son of Tikaram Uppadya, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
29. Sh. Lalrokima,
Son of Hengluaia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
30. Sh. K. Lalringa,
Son of Thanghuta, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
31. Sh. C. Malsawma,
Son of Chharliana, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
32. Sh. R. Lalrawna,
Son of Tlangkuna, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
33. Sh. Lalbiaklawma,
Son of Neihkima, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
34. Smt. K. Laltlanthangi,
Daughter of K. Remthanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
35. Smt. Lalmuanawmi,
Daughter of K. Remthanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
36. Smt. Gracy Lalsiamthangi,
Daughter of Kapchhunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
37. Smt. Rokami,
Daughter of Rokunga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
38. Sh. K.M. Lalhmachhuana,
Son of K.M. Thanseia (L), Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
39. Sh. K. Lalngurliana,
Son of K. Thangzawna, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 11 | P a g e
40. Sh. Lalduhthanga,
Son of Valtea, Resident of Pukpui, District: Lunglei,
Mizoram - 796707.
41. Sh. T. Lalrintluanga,
Son of T. Bualchhinga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
42. Smt. Kawlrosiami,
Daughter of R. Lalnunmawia, Resident of Zohnuai,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
43. Smt. C. Malsawmi,
Daughter of Vanlalliana, Resident of Ramthar,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
44. Sh. Zomuanzuala,
Son of Biaksiami, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
45. Sh. R. Zoliana,
Son of R. Vanmawia, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
46. Sh. P.C. Lalromawia,
Son of P.C. Liansanga, Resident of Ramthar,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
47. Sh. K. Rochungnunga,
Son of K. Chhawnthuama, Resident of Serkawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
48. Sh. R. Chhuanvawra,
Son of Senbuanga, Resident of Theiriat,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
49. Sh. C. Lalmuanzova,
Son of C. Rothanga, Resident of Serkawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
50. Sh. Vanhnuaikhuma,
Son of Chhungdula, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
51. Smt. Lalramngheti,
Daughter of R.K. Pahlira, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
52. Smti. C. Lalbiakthangi,
Daughter of C. Kaisanga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 12 | P a g e
53. Sh. Ronghingliana,
Son of Laizawna, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
54. Sh. Lalrinliana,
Son of C. Kaisanga, Resident of Chanmari -III,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
55. Sh. C. Rothuama,
Son of Rumliana, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
56. Sh. R. Lalthanga,
Son of Raltawna, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
57. Sh Zorinpuia,
Son of Laldina, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
58. Smt. C. Lalsangliani,
Daughter of C. Kaisanga, Resident of Chanmari -
III, District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
59. Smt. C. Lalbiakdiki,
Daughter of C. Zathuama, Resident of Chanmari,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
60. Sh. R. Lalhmingliana,
Son of R. Rongenga, Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
61. Sh. V. Lalhnema,
Son of V. Kapliana, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
62. Sh. R. Hrangtawna,
Son of Laia, Resident of Lunglawn, District: Lunglei,
Mizoram - 796707.
63. Sh. V. Biakchunga,
Son of Pahuaia, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
64. Sh. Rinzuala,
Son of Denga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
65. Sh. Zohmingliana,
Son of Vanchhunga, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 13 | P a g e
66. Sh. Lalruma,
Son of Selthanga Resident of Lunglawn,
District: Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
67. Sh. K Lalringa,
Son of Thanghluta, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
68. Sh. Golden Lalrosanga,
Son of Lalruma, Resident of Lunglawn, District:
Lunglei, Mizoram - 796707.
69. The Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110011.
70. The Director (North East-II), Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New
Delhi - 110011.
71. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Assam
Rifles Headquarters (HQ DGAR), Shillong,
Meghalaya - 793011.
72. The Deputy Inspector General, 23 Sector
Headquarters, Assam Rifles, Katla, Aizawl,
Mizoram, C/O 99 APO.
.....Respondents
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
For the Appellants : Mr. B. Deb, Advocate General, Mizoram (through
Video Conferencing), assisted by Mr. A. Barua,
Government Advocate, Mizoram.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.D. Nair, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to
88 in Writ Appeal No.71/2018 and for respondent
Nos.1 to 68 in Writ Appeal No.70/2018.
: Mr. K. Gogoi, Central Government Counsel for
respondent Nos.89 to 92 in Writ Appeal
No.71/2018 and for respondent Nos.69 to 72 in
Writ Appeal No.70/2018.
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024.
Date of judgment : 30.10.2024.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 14 | P a g e
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram,
assisted by Mr. A. Barua, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram,
representing the appellants in both these writ appeals. Also heard
Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1
to 88 in Writ Appeal No.71/2018 and for respondent Nos.1 to 68 in
Writ Appeal No.70/2018 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central
Government Counsel, representing the respondent Nos.89 to 92 in
Writ Appeal No.71/2018 and for the respondent Nos.69 to 72 in
Writ Appeal No.70/2018.
2. These 2(two) writ appeals are filed by the State of
Mizoram being aggrieved with the common judgment & order
dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.20/2014 and WP(C) No.30/2014, whereby the learned Single
Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions filed on behalf of the
writ petitioners (private respondents herein), has directed the
State respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings of the
private respondents'/writ petitioners' lands as per the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
to be referred as the "Act of 2013") within a period of 4(four)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment &
order. By the said judgment & order, a direction was also issued to
the Union of India to deposit the amount of compensation
awarded within a further period of 3(three) months in the Office of
the District Collector, Lunglei, who shall disburse the same to the
land owners.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 15 | P a g e
3. The brief facts of the case which are not in dispute are
that the lands belonging to the private respondents/writ
petitioners are in occupation of the Security Forces since 1966 and
at present are occupied by the Assam Rifles. The private
respondents/writ petitioners have raised their voice and on the
basis of the survey conducted by the Government of Mizoram,
they were paid rent from the year 1966 to 1986 against the said
occupation. However, from the year 1986 when due rent was not
paid to the private respondents/writ petitioners and other similarly
situated persons, they have approached this Court by way of filing
WP(C) No.41/2010, which came to be disposed of by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 25.06.2010 directing the
respondents therein to make a spot verification to ascertain
whether the lands of the private respondents/writ petitioners are
in occupation of the Assam Rifles and has further directed that
after such verification, the report shall be submitted to the Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India, who shall proceed further
on the basis of the said report.
4. Pursuant to the said direction, a joint spot verification
was conducted and on the basis of the same, it is verified that
57.73 Acres of land situated in Lunglawn, Lunglei is in occupation
of the Assam Rifles. On the basis of the said spot verification, an
assessment of the rent to be paid to the land owners was made
and as per the said assessment, rent has also been paid to the
land owners from the year 1986 to 31.12.2010. However, after
31.12.2010 no rent was paid to the private respondents/ writ
petitioners for which a separate writ petition was filed before the
Aizawl Bench of this Court. However, till the decision was passed
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 16 | P a g e
by the learned Single Judge, the said writ petition was still
pending.
5. Since the lands belonging to the private respondents/writ
petitioners and other similarly situated persons remained under
occupation of the Assam Rifles, 2(two) writ petitions, viz. WP(C)
No.41/2011 and WP(C) No.53/2011, have been filed by the land
owners before the Aizawl Bench of this Court seeking a relief that
the respondents Union of India as well as the State Government
be directed either to handover the possession of the land to them
or to pay adequate compensation to them by initiating acquisition
proceedings.
6. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering
the rival stands, has disposed of those writ petitions vide judgment
& order dated 26.04.2012 by directing the respondents to initiate
land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands, which were in
occupation of the Assam Rifles, under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as the "L.A. Act,
1894"), which was in force at that relevant point of time, by
issuing necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act,
within a period of 3(three) months from the date of passing of the
said judgment & order. The learned Single Judge has further
directed the respondents to proceed with the acquisition
proceedings with utmost expedition by scrupulously following the
provisions of the L.A. Act, 1894.
7. Pursuant to the said directions given by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment & order dated 26.04.2012, the State
Government has issued a Notification dated 05.07.2012 under
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 17 | P a g e
Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land of an
approximate area of 57.73 Acres, which includes the lands of the
private respondents/writ petitioners, for the public purpose of
establishment of Assam Rifles Battalion Key Location Plan at
Lunglawn, Lunglei District. Thereafter, though the declaration
under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was made but no progress
was achieved. In the meantime, the L.A. Act, 1894 was repealed
and the Act of 2013 was enacted, which came into force with
effect from 01.01.2014 and the private respondents/writ
petitioners have filed 2(two) separate writ petitions, viz. WP(C)
No.20/2014 and WP(C) No.30/2014, essentially with a prayer to
issue a direction to the respondent authorities therein to
expeditiously conclude the land acquisition proceedings initiated
vide Notification dated 05.07.2012 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act,
1894 with a further prayer to determine the compensation and
make the award under the provisions of the Act of 2013. The
private respondents/writ petitioners have claimed that since no
award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, 1894 has been made till
the enactment of the Act of 2013, by virtue of the provisions of
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, they are entitled to get the
compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
8. Initially in response to the writ petitions, a short counter
affidavit is filed on behalf of the State Government stating that a
Notification for declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894
was issued by the Government on 30.05.2013, however, the
action taken for preparation of the draft award could not be
continued as the State Government decided to draft its own Rules
for the purpose of land acquisition within the State of Mizoram. It
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 18 | P a g e
is to be noticed that no counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Assam Rifles has been
filed.
Later on, an additional affidavit is filed on behalf of the
State of Mizoram, wherein it is mentioned that since the Mizoram
(Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2016
(hereinafter to be referred as "Mizoram Land Acquisition Act") has
come into force, the Government shall initiate land acquisition
proceedings under the provisions of the said Act.
9. The said stand of the State Government is opposed by
the private respondents/writ petitioners by filing a counter
affidavit claiming that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act has no
application in the State of Mizoram as the same has not received
the assent of the President of India and is also less beneficial in
comparison to the Act of 2013.
10. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into
consideration the rival stands of the parties, has disposed of the
writ petitions in the manner indicated above, vide the impugned
judgment & order dated 15.11.2017. The learned Single Judge has
recorded a finding to the effect that the Mizoram Land Acquisition
Act is not applicable in the State of Mizoram and the private
respondents/writ petitioners are liable for compensation as per the
provisions of the Act of 2013.
11. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment & order
dated 15.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No.20/2014 and WP(C)
No.30/2014, the State of Mizoram has filed these 2(two) writ
appeals.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 19 | P a g e
12. Mr. B. Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram has
argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the
impugned judgment, which virtually resulted into setting aside the
Mizoram Land Acquisition Act itself. It is contended that the
validity of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act was not under
challenge in the writ petitions, however, the learned Single Judge
exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the Act itself.
It is pointed out that as per the Notification No.43 issued
by the Gauhati High Court on 19.08.2015, the matters challenging
the vires of Acts or Rules are only to be heard by the Division
Bench and not by the Single Judge. However, the learned Single
Judge in contravention of the said Notification, has proceeded to
examine the validity of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, which
was not permissible. It is further contended that the learned
Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, granted such relief to
the private respondents/writ petitioners which were not even
prayed for by them in the writ petitions and on this ground alone,
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
13. It is also argued by the leaned Advocate General,
Mizoram that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that
under Article 371(G) of the Constitution, in its true spirit, wherein
it is specifically mentioned that no Act of Parliament in respect of
ownership and transfer of land shall apply to the State of Mizoram,
unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by
resolution so decides. It is contended that the Legislative Assembly
of the State of Mizoram has never passed any resolution allowing
application of the Act of 2013 in the State of Mizoram and in such
circumstances, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 20 | P a g e
pay compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners as
per the provisions of the Act of 2013, is illegal.
14. The learned Advocate General has emphasized that
though the Act of 2013 is an Act of Parliament but it is on the
subject of ownership and transfer of property, which includes
acquisition. It is contended that ownership and transfer of
property find mention in Article 371(G) of the Constitution as well
as in Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It
is submitted that in view of the protection granted to the State of
Mizoram under Article 371(G) of the Constitution and as per Entry
18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the
Parliament has no power to make law on the subjects mentioned
in the State List.
It is contended that when the Act of 2013 has no
application in the State of Mizoram, there is no question of
repugnancy of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act with the Act of
2013 and as such, the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution
of India do not come into play.
15. The learned Advocate General has further argued that
ownership means right of exclusive possession and enjoyment of
thing owned, including the right to transmit it to others. It is
contended that as acquisition is one of the modes of transfer
which is a subject under the head of "ownership and transfer of
property", as enumerated in Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, the State of Mizoram has exclusive
right to enact a law on the said subject by virtue of Article 246 of
the Constitution of India.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 21 | P a g e
16. The learned Advocate General has further argued that
the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the States derives
power to legislate on the subjects mentioned in entry/entries
enumerated in List-I, List-II and List-III of the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution from Article 246, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)
of the Constitution. However, those lists merely demarcate the
legislative fields in which the Parliament and the State Legislatures
can enact the laws. It is argued that simply because the
acquisition and requisition of property found mention in one of the
entries of Concurrent List, it cannot be said that the Act made by
the Parliament on the said subject would prevail over in the State
of Mizoram despite enactment of the Mizoram Land Acquisition
Act. It is contended that the Act made by the Parliament in
respect of any of the subject enumerated in entry/entries of List-
II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution cannot be made
applicable in the State of Mizoram. The learned Advocate General,
Mizoram has, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be sustained
and the same may be set aside.
In support of the above contentions, learned Advocate
General has placed reliance on several decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court
17. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the private
respondents have vehemently opposed the writ appeals and have
argued that the learned Single Judge has not committed any
illegality in passing of the impugned judgment and has rightly held
that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable
in the State of Mizoram and the private respondents/writ
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 22 | P a g e
petitioners are liable to get compensation under the provisions of
the Act of 2013 only. It is contended that ownership and transfer
of property is distinct from the acquisition and, therefore, the Act
of Parliament, i.e. the Act of 2013, cannot be said to be not
applicable in the State of Mizoram, in view of the restrictions
imposed under Article 371(G) of the Constitution of India. It is
contended that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act has not received
the assent of the President of India though it is repugnant to the
Act of 2013 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly
held that the same cannot be applied in the State of Mizoram.
18. The learned counsels appearing for the private
respondents/writ petitioners have invited our attention towards an
affidavit filed by the private respondents/writ petitioners in Writ
Appeal No.70/2018 on 04.11.2019 highlighting that for acquisition
of land for the Security Forces under the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India in Helipad Area, Thuampui, Aizawl, Mizoram,
the Government of Mizoram has taken recourse and implemented
the Act of 2013. It is contended that award has also been passed
under the provisions of the Act of 2013 in case of acquisition of
land for Security Forces in the Helipad Area. It is contended that
on one hand the State Government is acquiring land for public
purposes by applying the provisions of the Act of 2013, however,
in the case of the private respondents/writ petitioners, they are
opposing the application of the Act of 2013 in the State of
Mizoram. It is contended that the State Government is not
supposed to play hot and cold at the same time and being a
welfare State, is required to give maximum benefit to its citizen of
a beneficial legislation. It is argued that the action of the State
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 23 | P a g e
Government of paying compensation in lieu of acquisition of land
to one set of citizens while applying the provisions of the Act of
2013 and denying the same benefit to the other set of citizens, i.e.
the private respondents/writ petitioners, is discriminatory and
cannot be sustained.
In support of the above contention, learned counsels
appearing for the private respondents/writ petitioners have also
placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. In rejoinder, learned Advocate General, Mizoram has
argued that, as a matter of fact, in the matter of acquisition of
land in the Helipad Area of Thuampui, Aizawl, Mizoram, the
Government of Mizoram has provided compensation to the
persons, whose lands have been acquired, as per the provisions of
the Act of 2013 because the High Court has passed such directions
in a writ petition as well as in contempt petition. It is contended
that since the compensation to the affected persons in the case of
Helipad area was given as per the provisions of the Act of 2013
under the Court orders, this cannot be treated as a precedent and
the private respondents/writ petitioners cannot take aid of the said
action of the State Government.
20. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
also perused the material available on record.
21. We feel that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
on which reliance is placed by the respective counsels, are not
required to be gone into detail because the controversy in these
appeals lies in a very narrow compass regarding the applicability of
the Act made by the Parliament or the State Legislature on the
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 24 | P a g e
subject of acquisition in the light of the provisions of the
Constitution of India and other relevant laws.
22. First of all, we deal with the argument of the learned
Advocate General that the learned Single Judge ought not to have
exercised his jurisdiction in the matter. It is contended that vide
the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has virtually set
aside the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act itself, whereas it was not
under challenge. It is also contended that as per the Notification
issued by this Court dated 19.07.2005, validity of an Act can only
be examined by the Division Bench.
23. We have carefully gone through the writ petitions, reliefs
claimed and the pleadings of the parties. In the writ petitions, the
validity of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act was not under
challenge and rightly so because at the time of filing of the writ
petitions, the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act was not even came
into force. The relief claimed for by the private respondents/writ
petitioners in the writ petition was that the State Government be
directed to conclude the acquisition proceedings initiated way back
in the year 2012 and to disburse the compensation to the private
respondents/writ petitioners in terms of the provisions of the Act
of 2013. The said claim of the private respondents/ writ petitioners
was opposed by the State while claiming that the private
respondents/writ petitioners are liable to get compensation as per
the provisions of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act and not as per
the provisions of the 2013 Act. The learned Single Judge has not
given any finding in respect of validity of the Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act in the impugned judgment. The learned Single
Judge has only opined, after taking into consideration the
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 25 | P a g e
provisions of the Constitution and the Act of 2013 as well as the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable in the State of Mizoram
due to lack of assent of the President of India and being less
beneficial to the public. The validity part of the Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act has not even touched by the learned Single Judge.
In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the
argument of the learned Advocate General to the effect that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is without
jurisdiction.
24. The core question, which is to be decided in these
appeals, is that which Act, i.e. the Act of 2013 or the Mizoram
Land Acquisition Act, will apply in the State of Mizoram.
25. So far as the finding of the learned Single Judge to the
effect that there is clear repugnancy between the Act of 2013 and
the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act and that the Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act is less beneficial in comparison to the Act of 2013
are concerned, though the State has assailed those findings in
these writ appeals, however, the learned Advocate General has
failed to satisfy us that how those findings are not correct or not in
consonance with law. We have assessed those findings in the light
of the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act but we do not find any infirmity.
26. If we give wider meaning to the word "acquisition", it
appears that it involves transfer of ownership or transfer of title of
properties. However, acquisition and requisition always treated as
separate subject since the time the Constitution was framed and
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 26 | P a g e
adopted. Originally, the entry "acquisition and requisition of
property" in the respective fields find mention in all the 3(three)
lists, i.e. List-I, List-II and List-III (33 in List-I, 36 in List-II and
42 in List-III). Later on, the Parliament felt that all the above
entries essentially relating to the single subject of acquisition and
requisition of property by the Government give rise to unnecessary
technical difficulties in legislation. So in order to avoid those
difficulties and to simplify the Constitutional position, it was
proposed to omit the entries in the Union or State Lists and
replace the entry in Concurrent List by a comprehensive entry
covering the whole subject. Therefore, vide Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956, 3(three) entries, i.e. Entry 33 in List-I,
Entry 36 in List-II and Entry 42 in List-III were repealed and a
single Entry 42 in the Concurrent List "Acquisition and requisition
of property" was substituted. [See - the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956]. It means that apart from ownership and
transfer of property, acquisition and requisition of property is
made a separate entry and find place as Entry 42 in List-III of
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
27. It is settled that entries in different lists should be read
together without giving narrow meaning to them. However, at the
same time though an entry is to be given its widest meaning but it
cannot be so interpreted so as to overwrite another entry or made
another entry meaningless when there is an apparent conflict
between the different entries. In such a situation, the role of the
Court comes into play and its core duty is to reconcile the different
entries. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Kumar Sharma
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 27 | P a g e
& Ors. -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (1990) 2
SCC 562; Union of India -Vs- Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra
Teachers' College, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 228; Girnar
Traders (3) -Vs- State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in
(2011) 3 SCC 1 and K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. -
Vs- State of Karnataka, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 1.
28. Taking into consideration the above situation, the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. M. Ismail
Faruqui & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994)
6 SCC 360 has held as under:-
"30. It is significant to bear in mind that Entry 42, List III, as
it now exists, was substituted by the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act to read as under:-
'Acquisition and requisitioning of property.'
Before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, the
relevant entries read as follows:-
List I, Entry 33 :
'33. Acquisition or requisitioning of property for the
purposes of the Union.'
List II, Entry 36 :
'36. Acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the
purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of Entry 42 of
List III.'
III, Entry 42 :
'42. Principles on which compensation for property
acquired or requisitioned for the purposes of the Union or of a
State or for any other public purpose, is to be determined, and
the form and the manner in which such compensation is to be
given.'
By the amendment so made, Entry 42, List III reads as
extracted earlier while Entry 33, List I and Entry 36, List II have
been omitted. The comprehensive Entry 42 in List III as a result
of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act leaves no doubt
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 28 | P a g e
that an acquisition Act of this kind falls clearly within the ambit
of this Entry and, therefore, the legislative competence of the
Parliament to enact this legislation cannot be doubted. This
ground of challenge is, therefore, rejected."
29. The controversy can be viewed from another angle also
by examining whether the State Legislature of the State of
Mizoram has enacted the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act by virtue of
Article 246 of the Constitution relying on Entry 18 of List-II of 7th
Schedule of the Constitution.
30. To determine the true nature and character of an
enactment, pith and substance of the legislation are required to be
taken into consideration. The scheme of the Act, its object and the
purpose is required to be focused at. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Girnar Traders (3) (supra) has elaborated the application of
doctrine of pith and substance, where there is an apparent conflict
between the entries enumerated in different lists of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered in the aforesaid case are reproduced
hereunder:-
"179. The Court has to keep in mind that function of these
constitutional lists is not to confer power, but to merely
demarcate the legislative heads or fields of legislation and the
area over which the appropriate legislatures can operate. These
entries have always been construed liberally as they define
fields of power which spring from the constitutional mandate
contained in various clauses of Article 246. The possibility of
overlapping cannot be ruled out and by advancement of law this
has resulted in formulation of, amongst others, two principal
doctrines i.e. doctrine of pith and substance and doctrine of
incidental encroachment. The implication of these doctrines is,
primarily, to protect the legislation and to construe both the laws
harmoniously and to achieve the object or the legislative intent
of each Act. In the ancient case of Subrahmanyan Chettiar v.
Muttuswami Goundan [1940 FCR 188], Sir Maurice Gwyer, C.J.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 29 | P a g e
supported the principle laid down by the Judicial Committee as
a guideline i.e. pith and substance to be the true nature and
character of the legislation, for the purpose of determining as to
which list the legislation belongs to.
180. This Court in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of
Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] , referring to the principle of
interpretation of entries in the Legislative Lists, held as under:
(SCC p. 609, para 7)
‘7. It is settled law of interpretation that entries in the
Seventh Schedule are not powers but fields of legislation.
The legislature derives its power from Article 246 and other
related articles of the Constitution. Therefore, the power to
make the Amendment Act is derived not from the respective
entries but under Article 246 of the Constitution. The
language of the respective entries should be given the
widest scope of their meaning, fairly capable to meet the
machinery of the Government settled by the Constitution.
Each general word should extend to all ancillary or
subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be
comprehended in it. When the vires of an enactment is
impugned, there is an initial presumption of its
constitutionality and if there is any difficulty in ascertaining
the limits of the legislative power, the difficulty must be
resolved, as far as possible in favour of the legislature
putting the most liberal construction upon the legislative
entry so that it may have the widest amplitude. …”
181. The primary object of applying these principles is
not limited to determining the reference of legislation to an entry
in either of the lists, but there is a greater legal requirement to
be satisfied in this interpretative process. A statute should be
construed so as to make it effective and operative on the
principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam
pereat. Once it is found that in pith and substance, an Act is a
law on a permitted field then any incidental encroachment, even
on a forbidden field, does not affect the competence of the
legislature to enact that law (State of Bombay v. Narottamdas
Jethabhai [1950 SCC 905 : AIR 1951 SC 69 : 1951 SCR 51] ).
182. To examine the true application of these principles,
the scheme of the Act, its object and purpose, the pith and
substance of the legislation are required to be focused at, to
determine its true nature and character. …….”
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 30 | P a g e
31. Applying the above test and after careful scrutiny of the
Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, we find that it is in respect of
acquisition of land for industrialization, development of essential
infrastructure facilities and urbanization. The Mizoram Land
Acquisition Act itself is a self-contained code within the framework
of limited purpose, i.e. acquisition of land. It provides for complete
machinery for acquisition of land, including process of execution,
payment of compensation as well as legal remedies in case of any
grievance and rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced
person.
32. Strictly speaking, the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act
addresses exclusively the issue of acquisition of land, subject
which is enumerated in Entry 42 of List-III.
33. We have also compared the provisions of the Act of 2013
as well as the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act and find that both the
Acts are on the same subject, i.e. acquisition and requisition of
property, which is the subject matter enumerated in Entry 42 of
List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. As a
matter of fact, the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is almost
verbatim to the Act of 2013 with minor changes, such as number
of Sections and missing of some of the provisions which relate to
the Central Government only.
34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that
the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram has enacted the
Mizoram Land Acquisition Act by invoking the power conferred
under Article 246 of the Constitution of India on the subject
matter “acquisition and requisition of property” as enumerated in
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 31 | P a g e
Entry 42 of List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and
not on the subject enumerated in Entry 18 of List-II of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. As such, we have no
hesitation in holding that the Act of 2013 is not hit by the
restrictions imposed under Article 371(G) of the Constitution of
India and the same is applicable in the State of Mizoram by virtue
of Clause (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2013, whereas the Mizoram
Land Acquisition Act being repugnant to the Act of 2013, cannot
be made applicable in the State of Mizoram in the absence of
assent of the President of India in terms of Article 254 of the
Constitution of India.
35. Under the constitutional scheme as per Article 256 of the
Constitution, the executive power of every State is required to be
exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the
Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State. Article
257 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of every
State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the
exercise of the executive power of the Union. In such
circumstances, the State of Mizoram is obliged to ensure
compliance of the Act of 2013 made by the Parliament.
36. It is not in dispute that the State of Mizoram has
determined the compensation in relation to the persons whose
lands were acquired in the Helipad area by invoking the provisions
of the Act of 2013. The explanation offered for that by the State
Government is that the same was done under the orders passed
by this Court passed in writ proceedings as well as contempt
proceedings. We are of the view that the said explanation is not
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 32 | P a g e
justifiable because State cannot discriminate between its citizens,
who are on the same footing, for whatever reasons.
37. There is no justification in the action of the State
Government of denying the relief to the private respondents/writ
petitioners of determining the compensation in lieu of acquisition
of their lands by applying the provisions of the Act of 2013 when
the same benefit has been given to the other set of citizens of the
State of Mizoram. The action of the State Government is clearly
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and the same cannot be approved.
38. It is true that Section 107 of the Act of 2013 provides
that nothing in the Act of 2013 shall prevent any State from
enacting any law to enhance or add the entitlements enumerated
under the said Act which confers higher compensation than
payable under the Act of 2013 or to make provisions for
rehabilitation and resettlement, which is more beneficial than
provided under the Act of 2013. However, since the findings of the
learned Single Judge that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is less
beneficial to the citizens of the State of Mizoram and, therefore, is
not inconformity with the provisions of Section 107 of the Act of
2013, has already been affirmed by us, the same cannot be
interfered with.
39. Resultantly, no case for interference with the impugned
judgment & order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.20/2014 and WP(C) No.30/2014 is made out.
Therefore, both the writ appeals preferred on behalf of the State
of Mizoram are dismissed.
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 33 | P a g e
40. The District Collector, Lunglei is directed to complete the
acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification dated 05.07.2012
as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 within a period of 3(three)
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment & order. After determining the compensation under the
provisions of the Act of 2013, the same shall be forwarded to the
Union of India. We direct the Union of India to deposit the amount
of compensation awarded within a period of 3(three) months
thereafter in the Office of the District Collector, Lunglei, who shall
then disburse the same to the respective land owners
expeditiously.
41. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Mukut
Comparing Assistant
W.A. No.71/2018 & W.A. No.70/2018 34 | P a g e