BAWIHTHUAMI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. H. Dawngliani, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and also heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel, appearing for Respondent No. 5.

(2.) The petitioners are all owners of landed properties at Kulikawn, Aizawl which are covered by LSC No. 104502/01/745 of 2007, 104502/01/746 of 2007 and LSC No. 104502/01/747 of 2007. It is pleaded that the respondents while undertaking the construction of Aizawl bypass road (Zemabawk-Silaimual) under World Bank Project had illegally encroached upon the petitioners land of an area measuring 18.94 metres. A spot verification conducted on 25.3.2008 on the basis of representation dated 15.3.2008 had also revealed that respondents had encroached upon an area measuring 18.94 metres. Under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy prepared by the respondents themselves, the respondents are duty bound to pay compensation to the petitioners for their illegal encroachment upon their land. In fact, under Clause/Rule 5.1 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of the Government, the State respondents are bound to give due value to the traditional practice of the tribal people and recognize their right over the land and absence of legal title to land would not be a bar for the people from getting the land compensation or replacement value for the affected land. Denial of payment of compensation to petitioners is highly illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to para 5.1 (ii) submits that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation for the land inasmuch as they belong to local tribe and the traditional practice recognises their right over the land, no matter whether they have legal title to the land or not. They have the house passes at the time of acquisition of land which is enough for claiming compensation of the value of the affected land and they can claim the privilege under the traditional practice and their right over the land as local tribal people must be recognized and protected. According to him, demand for valid LSC or Patta at the time of acquisition of land in question, for the purpose of payment of land compensation, is too hyper technical, which is not applicable to the present petitioners, more so, when they are still holding the valid LSCs and the same are not yet cancelled by the revenue authority.