Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/12/2024 of Sh. Lalrinchhana and 3 Ors. Vs The Union of India and 5 Ors. on 1 June 2026
GAHC030001352024 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030001352024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/12/2024
Sh. Lalrinchhana and 3 Ors.
S/o R. Vanlalnghaka,
R/o Kawnpui Venglai, Mizoram
2: Smt. Lalthapari Khiangte
3: Sh. Lalramzauva Ngente
4: Sh. H. Lalrinmawi
VERSUS
The Union of India and 5 Ors.
R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), 256- A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001
2:The General Manager
NF Railway Headquarters
3:The Deputy Chief Engineer
4:The Deputy Chief Engineer
5:The Deputy Chief Engineer
6:The District Collector
Kolasib Distric
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R6
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
02.06.2026
Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 6.
2. The petitioners claim damages compensation, due to construction of a railway line amounting to Rs. 9,28,74,930/-. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioners are owners of land covered by Village Council passes and one Periodic Patta. The claim of the petitioners is based upon the Order dated 28.03.2022 and letter dated 31.03.2022, both issued by the District Collector, Kolasib.
3. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that a railway line has not been constructed over the lands of the petitioners and that the NF railway was not represented at the time of the alleged verification of the petitioners lands made by the District Collector’s office. Further, the lands of the petitioners do not fall within the acquired land of the NF railway. Their further stand is that the petitioners lands have not been damaged by the respondents.
As such, the NF railway do not admit to any of the claim of the petitioners with regard to damages.
4. I have perused the affidavits filed by the writ petitioners and the respondents. There is nothing to show that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired. The Order dated 28.03.2022 and letter dated 31.03.2022 issued by the District Collector, Kolasib does not give any particulars as to how he has come to the compensation amount for damages. The only thing that can be ascertained from the letter dated 31.03.2022 is that he has calculated the land rate of the petitioners lands at Rs. 200/- per Sq. Ft. and then applied the same for payment of damages by the respondents. There is nothing to show as to what crops or trees have been damaged. Further, there is nothing to show the area of the damage lands and the area of the lands of the petitioners which are covered by the alleged Village Council passes and Periodic Patta. The further issue to be decided is whether the petitioners are owners of the lands and whether the land passes are valid
5. The authenticity of the Village Council passes and the unregistered sale deeds which are a part of the writ petition, would have to be proved by way of evidence. The affidavits of the respondents also suggest Contractors had not been allowed to work beyond the railways acquired land and as such, if compensation for damages was to be given, the Contractors for the concerned stretch of land would also have to be made parties to the case. There are disputed questions of facts.
6. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court with his grievance. The prayer of the petitioner’s counsel is allowed. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, as per rules.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant