UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED Vs. SHRI TSUPONTHUNG EZUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 5(five) appeals filed by the Union of India and 3 others against the common judgment dated 6/12/2012 of the District Judge, Wokha passed in C.S. No.02/04/05/06/07 of 2003 and the decree passed in pursuance of the judgment on 12/12/2012.

(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:- In the year 1991, 1992 with fund provided by Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India New Delhi (Appellant No.1), construction of a new road from Wokha-Bokajan by Border Road Organization (BRO) was undertaken. For that lands were acquired from private owners through the Government of Nagaland and the actual acquisition was done through the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha. It is stated that after formalities for acquiring the lands were completed from the parties, compensation were distributed by the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha with the fund provided by the Ministry of Surface Transport. Thereafter, as stated above the road construction was carried out by BRO and completed. However, the respondents in these appeals who also claims that their lands along with their cultivations/plantations, orchards, fisheries, canals and fruit bearing trees which were affected by the construction of the road from 16Km-31Km have not been paid compensation due to them therefore, they filed 5 different Civil Suit being C.S.No. 02/04/05/06/07 of 2003 before the District Judge, Wokha against the present appellants and against the State Government represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, and the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha and 4 other private respondents praying for compensation.

(3.) The claims of the plaintiffs in C.S. No.2/2003, 4/2003, 5/2003, 6/2003 and 7/2003 who are the private respondents in these appeals was that they are owners of the lands described below in the chart along with the plantations made therein, orchards, fisheries, canals, fruit bearing trees which were affected by construction of the Wokha-Bokajan, therefore, they should be paid the compensation due to them. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_39_LAWS(GAU)4_2017_1.html</FRM>