WRIT PETITION None on 11 March 1982

JUDGMENT

Date : 30-09-2022

Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith Ms. MaryL. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1-4 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii,learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5-7.

2] This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for adirection for the respondents to pay the petitioners fair compensation including landvalue, solatium and interest as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for a direction forquashing the notification dated 11.03.1982 declaring ‘Thorang Tlang’ as a ReservedForest for acquisition of the farmlands of the petitioners for the purpose of ThorangTlang Wildlife Sanctuary and for release of the petitioners lands after paying duecompensation as per law.

3] Mr. Vanlalnghaka learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitionersare from Dampui South Village and they have been residing in the area, what is nowknown as Thorang Tlang Sanctuary. The petitions were farmers and have been planting crops within the said village since the year 1992 having properties covered byperiodic pattas and village council passes. This area was also notified as “ThorangElephant Santuary” in 1995 but no information was given to them. The State haddeclared Thorang as Reserved Forest vide its notification dated 11.03.1982. Thenaround 2011, the respondents informed them that the said village is a wildlifesanctuary and that they have to be relocated. The petitioners were pressurize with ascheme wherein they would be relocated to a new location and that they would be aida sum of Rs. 10 lakhs per family. The respondents resort to stoppage of allinfrastructural and health facilities to the village as by means of coercion, forced thepetitioners to leave the Dampui South under the scheme of payment of Rs. 10 lakhseach for relocation of their homes, however, since they was no proper relocationscheme, the said 10 lakhs was not sufficient and have hence have approached thiscourt that their lands may be acquired as per the 2013 Act since the petitioners arehaving Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas.

4] Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the1982 notification was not issued as per the prescribed procedure and the petitionershad no knowledge of the declaration of the village as Reserved Forest area. The saidnotification existed prior to the existence of the village and while they were allowed toreside in the village for 20 years, there was no mentioned of the notification during allthose years. The petitioners were then issued eviction notice and were givenrehabilitation packages of Rs.10 for lakhs which is insufficient for any rehabilitation.

5] The learned counsel submits that the notification dated 11.03.1982 was not done by following the prescribed procedure and the thus this notification should be held void ab-initio. The Learned counsel has relied on the following citations wherein itwas held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned; Greater Mohali Area Development

Authority and Others Vs. Manju Jain and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157 para 22-24, In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits thatthe petitioners cannot take the plea that they were not aware the said duly notifiednotification of 1982 since ignorance of law is not an excuse. The State Government isnot expected to give a copy of the notification to each house hold. The petitioners hadagreed to move out of the area by receiving the sum of Rs.10 lakhs for relocation, thisrelocation scheme was done under the National Rehabilitation and SettlementScheme, 2007. The guideline which was laid down by the Central Government hasbeen adopted in the State. It was not the responsibility of the State Government tofind a place for relocation but the petitioners can reside where ever they wishalongwith the package which were given to them. The Government had initially paidthem Rs. 8 lakhs as rehabilitation packages and the remaining 2 lakhs was paid after the petitioners had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) 2013 for payment of theremaining 2 lakhs and by filing of the Contempt Case (C) No.7 of 2016. No claim wasmade by the petitioners during this period for payment of compensation of their landunder 2013 Act. The petitioners have now approach this court as late as in 2015. Thepetitioners are said to be the periodic pass holder in the year 2005 when this area wasalready declared as Reserved Forest/Wildlife Sanctuary. Further the Village Councilcannot issue such passes being not authorize.

7] The learned Government Advocate further submits that though the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 11.3.1982, they have not challenge thesubsequent notification in 2002 and has not raised any objection with regards to thenotification 2002.

8] Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent No.5-7 submits that thepetitioners have not made any claimed against the Union of India and therefore theyhave nothing much to submit in this matter.

9] Havingheard the submissions made by both the parties and on careful peruseof the documents on record, this court finds that the petitioners had accepted the sumof Rs.10 lakhs which was paid to them as per the National Rehabilitation andSettlement Scheme 2007, adopted by the State Government even though they hadacquired the full amount of the rehabilitation money after approaching this court inWP(C) 2013 and the Contempt Case (C) No.7 of 2016. During this whole period therewas no mention of receiving the money under protest nor was any demand made for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land,Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.

10] At this stage I find it fit to highlight some of the relevant portion of the NationalRehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 2007 which provides that ; “7.20 The affected families may be given the option to take a lump-sumamount in lieu of one or more of the benefits specified in paragraphs 7.2 to7.19, the amount being determined by the appropriate Government afterconsultation with the requiring body.

7.2 Any affected family owning house and whose house has been

acquired or lost, may be allotted free of cost house site to the extent of actualloss of area of the acquired house but not more than two hundred and fiftysquare metre of land in rural areas, or one hundred and fifty square metre ofland in urban areas, as the case may be, for each nuclear family: Provided that,in urban areas, a house of up to one hundred square metre -r' ,carpet areamaybe provided in lieu thereof. Such a house, if necessary, may be offered in amulti-storied building complex.rehabilitation and resettlement benefits underthis policy.

7.19 In case of linear acquisitions, in projects relating to railway lines,highways, transmission lines, laying of pipelines and other such projectswherein only a narrow stretch of land is acquired for the purpose of the projector is utilised for right of way, each khatedarin the affected family shall beoffered by the requiring body an ex-gratia payment of such amount as theappropriate Government may decide, but not less than twenty thousand rupees,,in addition to the compensation or any other benefits due under the Act orprogramme or scheme under which the land, house or other property isacquired: Provided that, if as a result of such land acquisition, the land-holderbecomes landless or is reduced to the status of a "small" or "marginal" farmer,other rehabilitation and resettlement benefits available under this policy shallalso be extended to such affected family.

7.21.12 The affected Scheduled Tribes families, who were in possessionof forest \ lands in the affected area prior to the 13thday of December, 2005,shall also be eligible for the rehabilitation and resettlement even though they claim to be in possession of forest \ lands in the affected area prior to the13thday of December, 2005”

12] Thus it is clear that the petitioners had willingly taken the option of one timelump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for their rehabilitation and resettlement even thoughthey claim to be in possession of land within the Thorang Tlang Reserved Forest area.13] I do not find any force in the submission that the petitioners should becompensated for their lands under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when the said areawhere the petitioners are said to have Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas, wasnotified as Reserved Forest/Wildlife Sanctuary way back in 1982. The petitioners aresaid to have settled in the area in 1992, while it was already declared a ReservedForest Area way back in 1982 vide notification dated 11.03.1982, thus the question ofinforming the petitioners of the notification before its issuance does not arise. Furtherthe petitioners have opted for the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under theNational Rehabilitation & Settlement Scheme, 2007, which is said to be adopted by theState and legality of the said Village Council Passes and Periodic Pattas is also anotheraspect which however need not be discussed any further considering the fact thatpetitioners have been paid the lump-sum amount in lieu of one or more of thebenefits specified in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.19 of the Scheme.

14] In view of the above reasoning the WP(C) is dismissed without costs and standsdisposed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant