Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030001192025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/21/2025 Sh. P.L. Lalremsanga S/o Lalauva, R/o Saichal, Saitual District, Mizoram. VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 2 Ors. Aizawl. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Saitual District 3:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)/ The Additional Deputy Commissione Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 & 2 Page No.# 2/4 ORDER BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the owner of a plot of land covered by Village Council Pass No. 214/2016 located at Saichal Village in Saitual District. The petitioner’s grievance is that in terms of the Notification dated 23.07.2021, objections were invited from land owners whose lands were going to be affected by the proposal to build (widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.) a road, i.e. NH102 B from km. 0 to km. 122. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though land owners who were having similar Village Council Pass issued by the Village Council for agricultural purposes, have been given compensation for damage to their crops and trees, the petitioner has been excluded from the list of persons who are going to be compensated for the damage caused to their crops and trees. He submits that the petitioner should also be given compensation for the damage caused to his crops and trees on the land covered by his Village Council Pass No. 214/2016. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s representation dated Page No.# 3/4 08.11.2024 to the respondent No. 3, asking for a spot verification of the land and to award compensation for damages to approximately 70 meters of his land, has not been acceded by the respondent No. 3 till date. He accordingly submits that the respondent No. 3 should be directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2024. 5. Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submit that they do not have any objection if the petitioner’s prayer for examining the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2024 is allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 however submits that the land claimed by the petitioner belongs to the Environment, Forest & Climate Change Deptt. and that the NHIDCL has made the necessary payment to the Department, for constructing the road over departmental land. In this regard, she has relied upon the letter dated 21.12.2023 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Environment, Forest & Climate Change. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the consent of the parties, the respondent No. 3 is directed to examine the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2024 and take a decision with regard to whether the petitioner is entitled to any damages in terms of his representation. 7. The respondent are also given the liberty to take a decision as to whether the petitioner’s Village Council Pass is a valid pass in terms of the applicable Land Laws of the State and whether the petitioner is the owner of the land covered by Village Council Pass No: 214/2016. Page No.# 4/4 8. The petitioner’s representation should be decided and a decision taken by the respondent No. 3, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant