Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030005092023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/117/2023 Sh. K.Elley and 7 Ors. S/o K.Khinau (L) R/o Mawhre, Siaha District, Mizoram 2: Sh. B.Laihaw 3: Sh. C.Beingachha 4: Sh. C.Khaima 5: Sh. H.Chozah 6: Smt. K.Neitlei 7: Sh. N.Tonga 8: Sh. T.Maph VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram and 7 Ors. Aizawl2:The Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Dept./ Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement 3:The Deputy Commissioner/ Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement Siaha District Page No.# 2/5 4:The Addl. Deputy Commissioner/ Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement Siaha District 5:The Sr. Local Administration Officer MADC 6:Union of India r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Defence 7:The Chief Engineer Border Road Task Force (BRTF) 8:The Executive Engineer (Civil) Officer Commandin Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr A.R. Malhotra Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 - R4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMAR ORDER (Oral) 25.08.2025 Heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents as well as Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, whose land was acquired for the construction of Zyhno-Mawhre-Chapi (ZMC Road). It is the case of the petitioners that the acquisition proceeding was done by the Page No.# 3/5 respondents under the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 2016 Act). It is stated that the petitioners were denied the Rehabilitation & Settlement Compensation as entitled to them under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act). 3. It is the prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition that respondents should be directed to award the Rehabilitation & Resettlement compensation as per the 2013 Act and not as per the 2016 Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. It is contented by the petitioners that in WP(C) No. 20 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 30 of 2014, this Court while considering similar writ petition had held that keeping in view the new 2013 Act, the State Government/respondents were directed by Judgment & order dated 15.11.2017 to complete the acquisition proceeding of the petitioners’ land and make assessment as per the new 2013 Act. Against the said Judgment & Order of this Court dated 15.11.2017, a writ appeal was preferred by the State respondents being Writ Appeal Nos. 70 of 2018 and 71 of 2018. The said writ appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench on 30.10.2024 upholding the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 passed in WP(C) 20 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 30 of 2014. The Division Bench in its Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2024 was of the view that there is no case for interference with the impugned Judgment & Order 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 20 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 30 of 2014. Accordingly, the writ appeals preferred by the State respondents were dismissed and the State respondents Page No.# 4/5 were directed to complete the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2013. 6. The State respondents thereafter preferred a review petition being registered as Review Petition No. 7 of 2025 against the Judgment & Order passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 70 of 2018 and 71 of 2018. By an order dated 19.02.2025, the review petition was also dismissed. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the present writ petition may also be allowed with similar direction to calculate the assessment and to pay the compensation as per the Act of 2013 as the facts and circumstances are similar. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl has fairly submitted that the present case is a covered case as the facts and circumstances are similar to that of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 20 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 30 of 2014. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels and has perused the pleadings as well as the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench and the order passed in the review petition and is of the view that this case is a similarly situated case. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall assess the Rehabilitation & Resettlement compensation due to the petitioners under the 2013 Act and not the 2016 Act within a period of 4 months from the date of this Order and Page No.# 5/5 thereafter submit the same to the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, who shall make the payment/compensation as indicated within a period of three months after the receipt of assessment report from the State respondents. 12. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant