Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030000832025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/15/2025 Smt. Laldinpuii W/o R. Lalnunmawia (L) R/o Kulikawn, Aizawl. VERSUS Union of India r/b the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and 4 Ors. Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 2:The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) 3:Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Aizawl District 5:The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition Aizawl Distric Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R3-4 Page No.# 2/4 ORDER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO 24.02.2025 Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Having regard to the nature of controversy projected by the petitioner, the matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. [2.] It is the case of the petitioner that she is in possession of a landed property covered by Periodic Patta No. 247 of 1982 situated near Seling. The respondent authorities have undertaken the construction and widening of NH-06 and although the construction affected her land, she has been excluded in the list of affected land owners and not paid compensation. The petitioner and similarly situated other land owners submitted a complaint before the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA), Aizawl district (Respondent No.5). The said authority thereafter verified the claims being made and vide letter dated 13.07.2023, the list of missing plots were submitted to the NHIDCL Page No.# 3/4 officials wherein, the present petitioner was also included. However, the NHIDCL has contended that the petitioner has already been paid compensation for crops damage amounting to Rs. 1,42,000/- and Rs. 4,99,556/-. [3.] The petitioner not being satisfied submitted her representation and also applied for information through RTI from the CALA. The NHIDCL has claimed that the compensation amount has been paid to one Sh. Thanbanglova S/o Dengkunga under V.C Pass No. 3/1988 and the chainage falls within 1540 & 1620 from the information supplied to the petitioner by the CALA. However, it is the case of the petitioner that his land covered by Periodic Patta No. 247/1982 falls within the chainage 2+435.39 - 2+720. It therefore appears that the compensation that was paid was in respect of another plot of land covered by different chainage. Although the petitioner had submitted her representation before the CALA on 31.01.2024, the same has not been considered and disposed of by the said authority according to the petitioner. [4.] Considering the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the same may be look into by the respondent authority concerned. The petitioner shall file a fresh concise representation before the CALA (Respondent No. 5) within a period of two (2) weeks from today and the CALA upon receiving the same shall examine the claim made by the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Such consideration be done within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. [5.] With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant