Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030003322024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/44/2024 1. Sh. Lalawia r/b R. Lalhmunmawia and 3 Ors. S/o Lalawia (L) R/o New Saiha Eas-II, Saiha, Mizoram 2: Sh. Lalrivenga r/b Lalawmkima 3: Sh. R.K. Vanlalliana r/b Liana Singson 4: Smt. Lalramlian VERSUS 1. Union of India and 4 Ors. R/b Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 2:Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Govt. of Mizoram 3:Chief Engineer Highways Public Works Dept. Govt. of Mizoram 4:Executive Engineer National Highway Division-III Public Works Dept. Page No.# 2/4 5:District Collector Kolasib Distric Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte. Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Lalnunhlui, GA, Mizoram for R2-5. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The case of the four petitioners herein is that they are owners of lands located at Bairabi Village, Kolasib District. It is the case of the petitioners that on 04.01.2026, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) was published by the respondent No. 5, inviting objections in connection with acquisition of land for construction of a 2 Lane Road along National Highway No. 154 stretch 53.00 km to 58.00 km Bairabi, Kolasib District. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State respondents published Award No. 1/2006 under the LA Act, wherein lands were acquired for construction of the 2 lane road. The names of the petitioners were however not mentioned in Award No. 1/2006. Being aggrieved, the four petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. Pursuant to a verification made by the State respondents, on the grievance of the petitioners and a number of other persons whose lands were allegedly used for construction of the road, the verification report and apportionment sheet made in pursuance to the verification report, showed that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to be given compensation for damage to their crops, as the road that was constructed passed over their lands. Page No.# 3/4 5. As per the apportionment sheet made pursuant to the verification report, petitioner No. 1 was to be given compensation for crop value amounting to Rs. 1,36,978/-, while the petitioner No. 2 was entitled to Rs. 41,834/-. 6. The petitioner No. 3 was however not found to be eligible to be given any compensation, for reasons not provided by the respondents. 7. In respect of the petitioner No. 4, it is quite apparent that the said petitioner cannot have any claim for compensation for acquisition of land, inasmuch as, the land for the road had been acquired in the year 2006, while the land allotted by the Village Council to the petitioner No. 4 had been allotted in the year 2008, vide VC House Pass No. 315/2008 dated 01.07.2008. 8. The Verification and Assessment Report with regard to land owners whose names were not included in Award No. 1/2006 states at paragraph 6 of the said verification report as follows:- “6. Given the above considerations and observations, 34 (thirty-four) numbers of landowners have been recommended for payment of compensation towards the NH-154 Widening (50 km to 58 Km), and the assessment sheets have been prepared copies of which are enclosed here. It may also be pertinent to mention that the landowner, Mr. R. Lalhmunmawia s/o Lalawia (L), Bairabi North, refused to agree with the assessment as he falsely claimed for land value and structure value even though his LSC was issued after the Land Acquisition notification date and the structure was built only after 2006 for which compensation award for Land value and structure value were not entitled respectively. This landowner used to possess a Village Council pass with which a considerable amount of Crops value was prepared and he did not content with the amount determined by the surveyor and refused to sign on the assessment sheet.” 9. The apportionment sheet for payment of the additional compensation to land owners whose names were not included in Award No. 1/2006 shows the petitioner No. 1 at Serial No. 35, while the petitioner No. 2 is at Serial No. 27. The apportionment sheet also shows that besides being given compensation for crop value, they are also going to be given 30% solatium. 10. As the acquisition of the land had been made in terms of the LA Act and that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not included in the Award No. 1/2006, the State respondents will have to issue a Page No.# 4/4 Supplementary Award under the LA Act, 1894 for payment of compensation to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 11. They should also look into the issue of whether the petitioners would be entitled to be given compensation for land value and interest @ 12%, besides the solatium granted to them. 12. The petitioner No. 3 claims to be the owner of lands covered by VC House Pass No. 219/2004. However, the respondents have not given any reason as to why the petitioner No. 3 is not included in Award No. 1/2006 and in the apportionment sheet pursuant to the verification undertaken in respect of those persons, whose names were not included in the Award No. 1/2006. 13. The District Collector, Kolasib shall accordingly make an enquiry and take a decision as to whether the petitioners’ VC House Pass is a valid VC House Pass or not. If the District Collector comes to a finding that it is a valid House Pass, the petitioner No. 3 would have to be given compensation, if the road has been constructed over the VC House Pass No. 219/2004. The said exercise should be concluded within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With regard to the claim of the petitioner No. 4 for compensation, the very fact that his claim to the land is based on a Village Counsel Pass issued in the year 2008, i.e., after the land for the road had been acquired in 2006, there is no case for grant of compensation to the petitioner No. 4, inasmuch as, he cannot be the owner of the land after the land had already been acquired for construction of a road. 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib should take steps for issuance of a Supplementary Award and payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant